I Notice Nothing About John Lackey During The Postseason

On his radio show this morning, Dan Patrick said this about John Lackey:

"You probably don't watch him during the regular season but you always notice him during the post season."

And followed with (when interviewing Harold Reynolds)

"Lackey has proven when he gets to the post season he's capable of coming up big."

Before last night's game, here were John Lackey's post season numbers: 2-3 3.41 ERA 1.264 WHIP and 6.04 SO per 9 innings and had not won a post season game since 2002. He's also never had a shut out or complete game in the playoffs.

Wins aren't the strongest metric to judge a pitcher's performance and the post season is a very small sample size. He's only started 9 post season games in his career before last night. I get all of that.

But a closer look at the Angels post season appearances and Lackey's performances, he has never had an dominant run during the post season like Hershiser in 1988 or Hamels last year which would warrant somebody noticing him and saying "John Lackey is post season gold." Dan Patrick never said the phrase that Lackey was post season gold, but when he's pointing out how he gets your attention in the post season, he really isn't basing that on data and facts. He is no more noticeable or capable than Jason Schmidt (first name that popped into my head) ever was (3-1/3.06/1.082/8.97 SO9). There is no reason, up to October 8th, 2009, to ever notice John Lackey for anything he's accomplished during the post season.

Now of course after saying that, watch Lackey go 5-0 with a 1.25 ERA and a WHIP of 0.941.