Awards Week

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

LOL

[Frayed Knot]

Things were much closer on the AL side

PITCHER	TEAM	1st	2nd	3rd	TOTAL
David Price	Rays	14	13	1	153
Justin Verlander	Tigers	13	13	2	149
Jered Weaver	Angels	0	2	14	70
Felix Hernandez	Mariners	0	0	5	41
Fernando Rodney	Rays	1	0	5	38
Chris Sale	White Sox	0	0	1	17
Jim Johnson	Orioles	0	0	0	5
Matt Harrison	Rangers	0	0	0	2
Yu Darvish	Rangers	0	0	0	1

[TransMonk]

Let the record show that when the NL Cy Young went head-to-head against the AL Cy Young on 06/02/12, the Mets won 9-1.

Dickey: Complete game one-hitter with 12 Ks and no walks.
Price: 7 ER over 5 innings with 3 walks.

That was one of my favorite (non-no-hitter) games of 2012.

[Edgy MD]

Frayed Knot wrote: PITCHER TEAM 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th TOTAL R.A. Dickey Mets 27 5 0 0 0 209 Clayton Kershaw Dodgers 2 11 10 1 6 96 Gio Gonzalez Nationals 1 12 6 8 4 93 Johnny Cueto Reds 1 4 10 10 2 75 Craig Kimbrel Braves 1 0 5 5 9 41 Matt Cain Giants 0 0 1 6 7 22 Kyle Lohse Cardinals 0 0 0 2 2 6 Aroldis Chapman Reds 0 0 0 0 1 1 Cole Hamels Phillies 0 0 0 0 1 1

I don't know if we saw this race as closer than this because we had a stake in it. I've got to think that the greater R.A. Dickey story and his media savvyness/friendliness helped him. It's writers, after all, voting on it.

Kind of expected a stray fourth or fifth place vote to go to Strasburg.

[Frayed Knot]

Yeah, I think the raw stats indicated a closer race among the top three but that the totality of the Dickey-story (whacko pitch, old guy, career minor leaguer, missing ligament, etc) made for the bigger gap.
I could make a good case for RA, just not sure I could make a 27-2-1 case. And did three voters actually think that Gio (1) and Kershaw (2) weren't in the top five?

[Edgy MD]

Kershaw likely never got considered by those two because his relatively low win total kep' him off the shortlist.

Progress, I think. Got to imagine that 25 years ago, he doesn't make the top five.

[metsmarathon]

who's out there giving first place votes to kimbrel and rodney when there are clearly dominant starting pitchers to choose from?

[MFS62]

metsmarathon wrote: who's out there giving first place votes to kimbrel and rodney when there are clearly dominant starting pitchers to choose from?

I heard (don't remember where - ESPN?) that it was their own baseball "Expert" Tim KJerkian who voted for Kimbrel.

Later

[Edgy MD]

I have no problem with that. I don't agree that a reliever shouldn't get considered unless no starter steps forward. It's a steeper hill to climb for relievers, but sometimes they climb it.

[metsmarathon]

well, yes. my point is though that the hill was far steeper this year what with the quality of the starters' performances. kimbrel is impressive, but there are many better candidates. and, if i were to vote for a brave, i'd give it to that medlen kid first.

[Frayed Knot]

Voters listing Dickey 2nd:

- Tim Brown, Yahoo Sports; LA Chapter -- Voted for Kershaw 1st

- Jerry Crasnick, ESPN.com, Philadelphia Chapter (Kershaw)

- John Fay, Cincinnati Inquirer, Cincinnati Chapter (Cueto)

- Tim Kurkjian, ESPN, Washington DC Chapter (Kimbrel)

- Patrick Saunders, Denver Post, Denver Chapter (Gonzalez)


http://bbwaa.com/12-nl-cy/

[Edgy MD]

In-tryst-ting: Everybody there except Saunders has a horse in the race, psychogeogrphaically. I'd imagine they'd all deny it, and anyhow, I just made up the word "psychogeogrphaically," but there it is.

[metsmarathon]

Edgy DC wrote: In-tryst-ting: Everybody there except Saunders has a horse in the race, psychogeogrphaically. I'd imagine they'd all deny it, and anyhow, I just made up the word "psychogeogrphaically," but there it is.

well, you misspelled it, is what you did.

[Edgy MD]

Ha! Real word after all. I'm going to submit a paper on this vote to Psychogeography Today.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Just had a free hour while Artie was sleeping; made the mistake of using said hour to check out MLB Network's AL MVP roundtable "debate" (with Keith Olbermann, Joe Posnanski, and-- ick-- Chris Russo prominently featured).

So, so much "winning matters" stuff, especially from ex-jocks (Harold Reynolds and Sean Casey chief among them). It's enough to make you think that ex-jocks should be eliminated in toto from any EVALUATIVE discussion, and stick only to the how-you-play analysis. Honestly, I'd much rather hear from ex-GMs like John Hart-- or even a Jim Bowden-- when you're talking about player-evaluation. Hell, just ONCE I'd like to hear someone rebut a "you never played the game/you don't know what it's like" argument with a "you never put together a player-eval/three-team trade."

[MFS62]

Harold Reynolds should not be able to take part in any discussion about award winners.
He won a Golden Glove for a year in which he made 18 errors at second base, playing more than half his games on artificial turf. I'm guessing he'd give the award to somone based on reputation.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

Sugarpants finishes as high as he could considering he was the guy not invited to the prom.

PLAYER	TEAM	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	TOTAL
BUSTER POSEY	Giants	27	4	1	0	0	422
Ryan Braun	Brewers	3	15	10	4	0	285
Andrew McCutcheon	Pirates	0	6	13	11	1	245
Yadier Molina	Cardinals	2	6	8	13	0	241
Chase Headley	Padres	0	0	0	1	9	127
David Wright	Mets	0	0	0	0	7	86
Adam LaRoche	Nationals	0	0	0	0	6	86
Craig Kimbrel	Braves	0	1	0	0	3	73
Aramis Ramirez	Brewers	0	0	0	0	1	47

Also
Jay Bruce - 46
Matt Holiday - 34
Aroldis Chapman - 20
Brandon Phillips - 18
Joey Votto - 18
RA Dickey - 16
Clayton Kershaw - 15
Ian Desmond - 15
Michael Braun - 12
Allen Craig - 10
Gio Gonzlaez - 8
Alfonso Soriano - 8
Kris Medlen - 8
Martin Prado - 8
Ryan Zimmerman - 7
Giancarlo Stanton - 7
Carlos Beltran - 6
Aaron Hill - 6
Carlos Ruiz - 4
Jason Heyward - 4
Johnny Cueto - 2
Bryce Harper - 2
Chipper Jones - 1
Miguel Montero - 1
Angel Pagan - 1
Hunter Pence - 1

[metsmarathon]

What one-shovel-less-less-than-a-full-toolshed gave a vote to Raul fucking ibanez?

[Frayed Knot]

And in the AL the BBWAA (in the view of many) keeps the world safe from statisticians with calculators by giving the award to the guy who proved his worth by ... by leading the league in a combination of statistics.

PLAYER	TEAM	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	TOTAL
Miguel Cabrera	Tigers	22	6	0	0	0	362
Mike Trout	Angels	6	21	1	0	0	281
Andrian Beltre	Rangers	0	1	16	9	0	210
Robinson Cano	Yankees	0	0	6	10	1	149
Josh Hamilton	Rangers	0	0	0	3	6	127
Adam Jones	Orioles	0	0	1	2	8	124
Derek Jeter	Yankees	0	0	2	1	4	73
Justin Verlander	Tigers	0	0	0	2	3	58
Prince Fielder	Tigers	0	0	0	0	1	56

Also
Yoenis Cespeds - 41
Edwin Encarnacion - 33
David Price - 26
Fernando Rodney - 24
Jim Johnson - 22
Alex Rios - 17
Josh Reddick - 14
Albert Pujols - 8
Ben Zobrist - 7
Joe Mauer - 6
Rafael Soriano - 5
Matt Weiters - 4
Felix Hernandez - 2
Jered Weaver - 2
Raul Ibanez - 1

[ashie62]

Who voted for Adrian Beltre second?

[Ceetar]

Ashie62 wrote: Who voted for Adrian Beltre second?

Sheldon Ocker Akron Beacon Journal

[Edgy MD]

What a holy stink on that Cabrera/Trout thingie. The Times, interestingly, aggregates the story, rather than covering it. Which of course is part of the problem. The more that credible sources become aggregators of information, the fewer credible sources there are providing it.

Murray Chass, of course, shits a watermelon.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: What a holy stink on that Cabrera/Trout thingie. The Times, interestingly, aggregates the story, rather than covering it. Which of course is part of the problem. The more that credible sources become aggregators of information, the fewer credible sources there are providing it. Murray Chass, of course, shits a watermelon.

Mitch Albom weighs in too apparently.

I'm amused by it all.

[Vic Sage]

It's the WAR war. It's stupid; Cabrera and Trout both had really good years. Either one is a valid MVP candidate. But the notion that a TRIPLE CROWN must = MVP is just silly.

Why are OLD stats, which are demonstrably less related to run creation (and deal with run PREVENTION not at all) somehow SUPERIOR to modern stats, which have the benefit of being developed since the advent of computers and quantitative analysis? I think they are treated as better by some voters and commentators (and fans) just because they are more easily understood. And players sure don't want to hear about wins or RBIs being "team-dependent"; they take it as an article of faith that wins and RBIs are the consequence of personal character. They should all be excluded from these discussions. You don't ask a tree to describe the forest.

[Edgy MD]

Vic Sage wrote: I think they are treated as better by some voters and commentators (and fans) just because they are more easily understood.

Albom owns that one with pride.

Today, every stat matters. There is no end to the appetite for categories -- from OBP to OPS to WAR. I mean, OMG! The number of triples hit while wearing a certain-colored underwear is probably being measured as we speak. So in areas such as "how many Cabrera home runs would have gone out in Angel Stadium of Anaheim" or "batting average when leading off an inning" or "Win Probability Added," Trout had the edge. At least this is what we were told. I mean, did you do the math? I didn't. I like to actually see the sun once in a while.

But Trout excelled in the kind of numbers that weren't even considered a few years ago, mostly because A) They were impossible to measure, and Nobody gave a hoot.

This is what drives me batty about the whole thing. Many of his superior numbers --- on-base percentage, stolen bases, and stolen base percentage --- are neither remotely new nor remotely esoteric.

Albom is also unashamed about the "I cover Detroit sports and if you actually saw the guy, you'd know" argument.

Besides, if you live in Detroit, you didn't need a slide rule. This was an easy choice. People here watched Cabrera, 29, tower above the game in 2012. Day after day, game after game, he was a Herculean force. Valuable? What other word was there? How many late-inning heroics? How many clutch hits? And he only missed one game all year.

Yeah, well other people live in Southern California and saw a lot more of Trout than you did. That's why we ask people to attempt to be objective. Numbers are good for that.

And be careful with those last three sentences in that paragraph. You're asking for statistical answers. OMG!

The funny thing is that he plays the "And his team won so you know he's better!" argument even when it doesn't hold up.

How about the fact that Cabrera's team made the playoffs and Trout's did not? ("Yes," countered Team Trout, "but the Angels actually won more games.") How about the fact that Cabrera played the whole season while Trout started his in the minors? ("Yes," said the Trout Shouters, "but the Angels won a greater percentage with Trout than Detroit did with Cabrera.")

Hey, thanks for smashing your own arguments, Mitch. How about just dropping that stupid paragraph to begin with?

How did Fire Joe Morgan! get shut down? There had to have been money to be made in stopping this sort of thing.

[Ceetar]

the FJM guys went on to other things right? I'm sorta surprised no one's picked up the mantle more than occasionally.

[Edgy MD]

And again

Vic Sage wrote: Why are OLD stats, which are demonstrably less related to run creation (and deal with run PREVENTION not at all) somehow SUPERIOR to modern stats, which have the benefit of being developed since the advent of computers and quantitative analysis? I think they are treated as better by some voters and commentators (and fans) just because they are more easily understood.

There is only one way to calculate batting average or on-base or slugging percentage, one way to calculate won-lost percentage or earned run average or baserunners per nine innings. Simple math, multiplication, division, that everyone learns in elementary school produces batting and earned run averages. WAR requires a Ph. D in math.

Murray Chass, ladies and gentlemen. The former voice of the Times, scorning higher ed.

[Frayed Knot]

I love the whole notion of the Trout-ites being basement shut-ins with their laptops who deal only in numbers and never watch the games while the "real" fans/writers know that Cabrera was superior because they consider the whole product ... and considering the whole product apparently means acting as if nothing but the TC-stats matter while things like glove-work, throwing, base-running and GiDPs must be irrelevant to the topic or else someone would have thought to concoct a simple stat for them decades ago.

I have no problem if someone wants to make an argument in Miggy's favor but, fer crissakes, make it an intelligent one!

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

It's also a lot simpler than WAR derivations or which-stat-is-less-old-fashioned: Cabrera was a superlative hitter; Trout was almost as superlative a hitter (or, really, as good or better), a lot better on the bases and FAR better defensively at a much more critical position.

[HahnSolo]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Just had a free hour while Artie was sleeping; made the mistake of using said hour to check out MLB Network's AL MVP roundtable "debate" (with Keith Olbermann, Joe Posnanski, and-- ick-- Chris Russo prominently featured). So, so much "winning matters" stuff, especially from ex-jocks (Harold Reynolds and Sean Casey chief among them). It's enough to make you think that ex-jocks should be eliminated in toto from any EVALUATIVE discussion, and stick only to the how-you-play analysis. Honestly, I'd much rather hear from ex-GMs like John Hart-- or even a Jim Bowden-- when you're talking about player-evaluation. Hell, just ONCE I'd like to hear someone rebut a "you never played the game/you don't know what it's like" argument with a "you never put together a player-eval/three-team trade."

I, like you, actually saw this when it happened. It was classic Russo...all over the map, juggling his hands to make a point, he threw in one my favorite mispronunciations of his--"renember". My favorite moment was when Russo finished his 1-minute introductory argument, and Posnanski deadpanned, "I disagree with--literally--everything he just said."