For the second year in a row, Miguel Cabrera will win an MVP award that probably should have been Mike Trout's.
This is a more difficult race than it was last year, when Cabrera won the Triple Crown and Trout had one of the best rookie seasons of all time. Somehow, both players performed better in 2013. Trout hit .323/.432/.557 with 27 home runs and 33 steals; Cabrera hit .348/.442/.636 with 44 home runs and a league-leading 187 OPS+.
The race might be tighter than last year, but the winner should again be Trout. Some people will find this conclusion completely unacceptable when it really should be common sense. Which player is more valuable: the best hitter in the league who provides negative value with his legs and glove, or the second-best hitter in the league who's also one of the best baserunning and defensive players in the sport? This obvious gap in value is reflected by their respective WAR figures: 9.2 for Trout and 7.2 for Cabrera, according to Baseball Reference. And maybe Cabrera's offensive advantage isn't even as large as we imagine. Cabrera had more total bases than Trout (353 to 328), but Trout easily passes Cabrera once you factor in his lead in walks (110 to 90), net steals (26 to 3) and double plays grounded into (8 to 19).
Rather humorously, all the arguments that the pro-Cabrera crowd used last year to support their candidate could be reversed and applied to Trout now. A year ago, Cabrera was given bonus points for playing in more games than Trout and for hitting better in September, when apparently the games "count" more than they do in other months. This year? Trout has appeared in more games (157 to 148) and absolutely crushed Cabrera in September (.949 OPS to .729). But assuredly, the Cabrera supporters won't be citing those arguments this time around, because they don't back up the conclusion they've already arrived at.
Some would penalize Trout for being on an inferior team while Cabrera is going to the playoffs, but ... why? Why should Cabrera get the edge in the AL MVP vote just because his pitching staff has Max Scherzer, Justin Verlander, Anibal Sanchez, and Doug Fister? Why penalize Trout for the black holes of nothingness that were Albert Pujols and Josh Hamilton? This is an individual award, and Trout is the best, and most valuable, individual player.
Here's the rest of my AL MVP ballot, as well as the rest of baseball's award winners.
AL MVP
1. Mike Trout: not only will he lose; he might not even come in second.
2. Miguel Cabrera: might have finished first if not for an injury that's kept him hobbled for weeks.
3. Josh Donaldson: Oakland's best player, he hit .301/.384/.499 with strong defense at third base.
4. Chris Davis: fifty-three home runs is a lot of home runs.
5. Robinson Cano: like clockwork, he had his typical season (.314/.383/.516) in a lineup that featured Brett Gardner as its second-best hitter.
6. Adrian Beltre: the Robinson Cano of third base.
7. Evan Longoria: finally played in 160 games.
8. Dustin Pedroia: didn't even need to hit double-digit home runs to be one of the best players in the AL.
9. Jacoby Ellsbury: about to make at least $100 million on the free agent market.
10. Manny Machado: his offense cratered in the second half, but he's already one of the best defensive players in the sport.
NL MVP
1. Andrew McCutchen: he'll win this award for being the best all-around player; why is this logic nowhere to be found in the AL race?
2. Matt Carpenter: led the league in hits (199), doubles (55), and runs scored (126), all as a second baseman.
3. Paul Goldschmidt: the best offensive player in the NL.
4. Carlos Gomez: went unnoticed despite being an outstanding defensive center fielder who also slugged .508, hit 24 homers, and stole 40 bases.
5. Joey Votto: supposedly had a "down" year, when in reality he broke Pete Rose's franchise record for most times on base in a single season.
6. Yadier Molina: the best catcher in baseball also hit .319 and slugged .477.
7. Clayton Kershaw: one of the few times a pitcher actually deserves to appear on an MVP ballot.
8. Shin-Soo Choo: only teammate Joey Votto had a higher OBP in the National League.
9. Troy Tulowitzki: health is the only thing keeping him from winning an MVP.
10. Hanley Ramirez: had the greatest offensive season by any shortstop ever (.345/.402/.638), but only played in 86 games.
AL Cy Young
1. Max Scherzer: just barely ekes out the next few candidates in a very tight race.
2. Felix Hernandez: perennially the best case for ditching win-loss record as a legitimate statistic (12-10 record, 3.04 ERA).
3. Yu Darvish: a delicious 277 strikeouts in 209.2 innings.
4. Chris Sale: gave up a grand total of three extra-base hits to left-handed hitters all season (in 163 plate appearances).
5. Anibal Sanchez: much like Hanley Ramirez, Sanchez had the best numbers of anyone but didn't stay on the field enough.
NL Cy Young
1. Clayton Kershaw: his 2013 season was roughly as good as Sandy Koufax's 1966 season, and that isn't hyperbole.
2. Adam Wainwright: clearly the second-best pitcher in the league, and he still gave up 31 more earned runs than Kershaw.
3. Matt Harvey: unhittable before a devastating elbow injury.
4. Jose Fernandez: 20 years old, skipped Double-A and Triple-A, and posted a 2.19 ERA in 172.2 innings.
5. Cliff Lee: ho hum, just your typical Cliff Lee season -- 220 innings, a sub-3.00 ERA, and a league-leading strikeout-to-walk ratio.
Showing posts with label Awards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Awards. Show all posts
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Handing out Hardware: Recapping the College Basketball Season
Right now, it's the calm before the storm. Very soon, conference tournaments are going to kick into hyperdrive; then the Selection Committee will release The Bracket, President Obama will make his picks, and the Madness will begin. Once all that gets underway, what happened during the regular season tends to be forgotten. The three-week storm has come to mean more than the four-month journey. So before the madness sets in, let's recognize the best accomplishments of the last four months by handing out some regular-season awards.
Player of the Year
5. Doug McDermott (Creighton). He gets dinged for playing on a team that lost five games in the Missouri Valley Conference. Otherwise, his numbers would've blown the rest of the field out of the water: 23.1 points and 7.5 rebounds per game while shooting 56% from the field, almost 50% from 3-point range, and 86% at the line.
4. Kelly Olynyk (Gonzaga). Came out of nowhere to become the best player on the #1 team in the polls. The nation's most efficient forward averaged 17.5 points per game shooting a ridiculous 65% from the field. And thanks to Gonzaga's depth (and frequent blowout wins), he accumulated those stats while averaging only 25 minutes per game.
3. Victor Oladipo (Indiana). Like Olynyk, Oladipo's shocking improvement caught everyone by surprise. While he doesn't stand out in one statistical category, it's his across-the-board impact that makes him so valuable: 13.7 points, 6.2 rebounds, 2.2 steals, 2.1 assists, 61% from the field, 46% from 3-point range, and lockdown defense.
2. Otto Porter (Georgetown). Basically did exactly what Victor Oladipo did. The difference: teams facing Georgetown didn't have to worry about Cody Zeller down low or Jordan Hulls on the perimeter. Porter is pretty much the only offensive threat the Hoyas have, and he was a monster anyway. How did a Georgetown team that wasn't expected to do anything somehow end up with a shot at a #1 seed? Otto Porter.
1. Trey Burke (Michigan). He's a guard who shoots 49% from the field in the toughest conference. He dishes out nearly seven assists and commits just two turnovers per game. The freshman-dependent offense that he runs is hyper-efficient. When it comes to the most important position on the basketball court, Trey Burke laps the field.
Defensive Player of the Year
Jeff Withey (Kansas). Withey set the Big 12 career blocks record and anchored a Kansas defense that allowed the lowest field-goal percentage of any team in the country. Amazingly, he averages twice as many blocks per game (4) as fouls committed (1.9). But most importantly, he provided the inspiration for a website (witheyface.com) that chronicles all of the outlandish faces he makes while on the court.
Freshman of the Year
Marcus Smart (Oklahoma State). It's safe to say that if you took Smart off of Oklahoma State's roster, the Cowboys wouldn't even be a tournament team. The same can't be said of any other freshman out there.
Coach of the Year
Jim Larranaga (Miami). The movie version of Larranaga's career would have ended with him taking 11-seed George Mason to the Final Four in 2006 and then walking off into the sunset. Yet seven years later, he won the ACC title at a school that had never cared about basketball, with players that his predecessor had recruited. He beat Duke and North Carolina at home by a combined 53 points. He also oversaw the breakout performance of sophomore point guard Shane Larkin, who averaged 13.7 points and 4.4 assists per game on 48% shooting.
Team of the Year
Gonzaga Bulldogs. No, they wouldn't win the award for Most Talented or Best Team. But when it comes to the team that was the most consistent throughout the entire season, it's Gonzaga. They played a difficult nonconference schedule, dominated the WCC, ascended to the country's #1 ranking, breezed through their league tournament, and will likely be rewarded with a number-one seed. Kelly Olynyk was a Player of the Year candidate, but the most striking thing about this squad was its selflessness. 11 different Zags averaged at least 8 minutes per game while only one of those players, point guard Kevin Pangos, averaged more than 30 minutes. NBA prospect Przemek Karnowski got hardly any playing time. Mike Hart played 17 minutes per game for the #1 team in the country yet only took 33 shots all season, accepting his role as a lockdown defensive player. The Team of the Year was Gonzaga, without any doubt.
Image of the Year
It's easily the SEC's leading scorer, Marshall Henderson of Ole Miss, taunting a cornucopia of Auburn bros. There's a lot going on here. It's like a modern-day Guernica.
Best Single-Game Performance
5. Jerian Grant (Notre Dame). If this category was named "Best Final-Minute Performance," Grant would win the award hands-down. With 44 seconds remaining against Louisville on February 9th, Notre Dame was trailing 56-48 when Grant hit a 3 to cut the lead to 5. Ten seconds later, he sank another one. Eight seconds later, he sank a third. And ten seconds after that, he tied the game on a driving layup and a free throw. Between the 44-second mark and the 16-second mark, Grant had erased an eight-point deficit by scoring twelve points in four possessions. Notre Dame would end up winning the game. After five overtimes.
4. Doug McDermott (Creighton). Really, you could pick any of his best performances out of a hat. But the cherry on top of Doug McDermott's season was the masterpiece he put together against Wichita State in the regular season finale on March 2nd. In a 91-79 win that clinched the Missouri Valley title for Creighton, McDermott scored 41 points on 15-of-18 shooting. Fifteen of eighteen. Holy efficiency, Batman.
3. Ryan Kelly (Duke). The fact that he was even playing against Miami on March 2nd was a surprise. The fact that he played more than 10 minutes was a shock. So the fact that Ryan Kelly scored 36 points with seven made three-pointers in a 79-76 Duke win was ... unthinkable.
2. Elijah Johnson (Kansas). Johnson was so bang-your-head-against-a-coffee-table awful during Kansas's three-game losing streak that Bill Self even called him out publicly. Maybe the coach knew what he was doing. Johnson responded by scoring 36 points and single-handedly leading his team to a win at Iowa State on February 25th. Eight of his points came in the final 29 seconds (Jerian Grant scoffs) to erase a late deficit, and twelve more came in overtime of the 108-96 victory.
1. Kendall Williams (New Mexico). On February 23rd, Williams went off for 46 points and 10 made three-pointers on 13 attempts to secure a 91-82 win at Colorado State, a team that didn't lose any other home game all season. That can't be topped.
Biggest Shot
5. Rotnei Clarke (Butler). This game-winning shot to beat Marquette in November's Maui Invitational had absolutely no business going in.
4. Tyler Griffey (Illinois). Usually, when there's 0.9 seconds left on the clock in a tie game, nothing of note happens. There's just not enough time to get off a decent shot. That must have been what Indiana was thinking, too.
3. Alex Barlow (Butler). Clearly, if there's a late, dramatic shot in a big game, odds are that Butler was on the winning side and Indiana was on the losing side. Butler handed the Hoosiers their first loss of the season way back on December 15th when former walk-on Alex Barlow hit the go-ahead layup with seconds remaining in overtime to stun the #1 team in the country. And somehow this wasn't even the biggest shot by a Butler player this season.
2. Ben Brust (Wisconsin). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1. Roosevelt Jones (Butler). This shot, this play, and this game all come together to form the most iconic moment of the 2012-2013 season. On one side, there's the Butler Bulldogs, whose storybook rise under Brad Stevens couldn't have ever been scripted by anyone because that person would've been fired by his editor for wasting precious company hours on fairy tales. On the other side, there's the Gonzaga Bulldogs, the original Cinderella team, who lost this game in heartbreaking fashion but haven't lost another one since, en route to an undefeated conference season and an improbable #1 ranking. And then take a step back to realize that the Game/Moment of the Year didn't feature a blue-blood powerhouse like Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, or Kansas, but rather two programs named Butler and Gonzaga. This is college basketball, right here. Dick Vitale (perhaps unintentionally) summarizes it best when, during the postgame scrum, he shouts, "Are you serious, America?!"
Player of the Year
5. Doug McDermott (Creighton). He gets dinged for playing on a team that lost five games in the Missouri Valley Conference. Otherwise, his numbers would've blown the rest of the field out of the water: 23.1 points and 7.5 rebounds per game while shooting 56% from the field, almost 50% from 3-point range, and 86% at the line.
4. Kelly Olynyk (Gonzaga). Came out of nowhere to become the best player on the #1 team in the polls. The nation's most efficient forward averaged 17.5 points per game shooting a ridiculous 65% from the field. And thanks to Gonzaga's depth (and frequent blowout wins), he accumulated those stats while averaging only 25 minutes per game.
3. Victor Oladipo (Indiana). Like Olynyk, Oladipo's shocking improvement caught everyone by surprise. While he doesn't stand out in one statistical category, it's his across-the-board impact that makes him so valuable: 13.7 points, 6.2 rebounds, 2.2 steals, 2.1 assists, 61% from the field, 46% from 3-point range, and lockdown defense.
2. Otto Porter (Georgetown). Basically did exactly what Victor Oladipo did. The difference: teams facing Georgetown didn't have to worry about Cody Zeller down low or Jordan Hulls on the perimeter. Porter is pretty much the only offensive threat the Hoyas have, and he was a monster anyway. How did a Georgetown team that wasn't expected to do anything somehow end up with a shot at a #1 seed? Otto Porter.
1. Trey Burke (Michigan). He's a guard who shoots 49% from the field in the toughest conference. He dishes out nearly seven assists and commits just two turnovers per game. The freshman-dependent offense that he runs is hyper-efficient. When it comes to the most important position on the basketball court, Trey Burke laps the field.
Jeff Withey (Kansas). Withey set the Big 12 career blocks record and anchored a Kansas defense that allowed the lowest field-goal percentage of any team in the country. Amazingly, he averages twice as many blocks per game (4) as fouls committed (1.9). But most importantly, he provided the inspiration for a website (witheyface.com) that chronicles all of the outlandish faces he makes while on the court.
Freshman of the Year
Marcus Smart (Oklahoma State). It's safe to say that if you took Smart off of Oklahoma State's roster, the Cowboys wouldn't even be a tournament team. The same can't be said of any other freshman out there.
Coach of the Year
Jim Larranaga (Miami). The movie version of Larranaga's career would have ended with him taking 11-seed George Mason to the Final Four in 2006 and then walking off into the sunset. Yet seven years later, he won the ACC title at a school that had never cared about basketball, with players that his predecessor had recruited. He beat Duke and North Carolina at home by a combined 53 points. He also oversaw the breakout performance of sophomore point guard Shane Larkin, who averaged 13.7 points and 4.4 assists per game on 48% shooting.
Team of the Year
Gonzaga Bulldogs. No, they wouldn't win the award for Most Talented or Best Team. But when it comes to the team that was the most consistent throughout the entire season, it's Gonzaga. They played a difficult nonconference schedule, dominated the WCC, ascended to the country's #1 ranking, breezed through their league tournament, and will likely be rewarded with a number-one seed. Kelly Olynyk was a Player of the Year candidate, but the most striking thing about this squad was its selflessness. 11 different Zags averaged at least 8 minutes per game while only one of those players, point guard Kevin Pangos, averaged more than 30 minutes. NBA prospect Przemek Karnowski got hardly any playing time. Mike Hart played 17 minutes per game for the #1 team in the country yet only took 33 shots all season, accepting his role as a lockdown defensive player. The Team of the Year was Gonzaga, without any doubt.
Image of the Year
It's easily the SEC's leading scorer, Marshall Henderson of Ole Miss, taunting a cornucopia of Auburn bros. There's a lot going on here. It's like a modern-day Guernica.
Best Single-Game Performance
5. Jerian Grant (Notre Dame). If this category was named "Best Final-Minute Performance," Grant would win the award hands-down. With 44 seconds remaining against Louisville on February 9th, Notre Dame was trailing 56-48 when Grant hit a 3 to cut the lead to 5. Ten seconds later, he sank another one. Eight seconds later, he sank a third. And ten seconds after that, he tied the game on a driving layup and a free throw. Between the 44-second mark and the 16-second mark, Grant had erased an eight-point deficit by scoring twelve points in four possessions. Notre Dame would end up winning the game. After five overtimes.
4. Doug McDermott (Creighton). Really, you could pick any of his best performances out of a hat. But the cherry on top of Doug McDermott's season was the masterpiece he put together against Wichita State in the regular season finale on March 2nd. In a 91-79 win that clinched the Missouri Valley title for Creighton, McDermott scored 41 points on 15-of-18 shooting. Fifteen of eighteen. Holy efficiency, Batman.
3. Ryan Kelly (Duke). The fact that he was even playing against Miami on March 2nd was a surprise. The fact that he played more than 10 minutes was a shock. So the fact that Ryan Kelly scored 36 points with seven made three-pointers in a 79-76 Duke win was ... unthinkable.
2. Elijah Johnson (Kansas). Johnson was so bang-your-head-against-a-coffee-table awful during Kansas's three-game losing streak that Bill Self even called him out publicly. Maybe the coach knew what he was doing. Johnson responded by scoring 36 points and single-handedly leading his team to a win at Iowa State on February 25th. Eight of his points came in the final 29 seconds (Jerian Grant scoffs) to erase a late deficit, and twelve more came in overtime of the 108-96 victory.
1. Kendall Williams (New Mexico). On February 23rd, Williams went off for 46 points and 10 made three-pointers on 13 attempts to secure a 91-82 win at Colorado State, a team that didn't lose any other home game all season. That can't be topped.
Biggest Shot
5. Rotnei Clarke (Butler). This game-winning shot to beat Marquette in November's Maui Invitational had absolutely no business going in.
4. Tyler Griffey (Illinois). Usually, when there's 0.9 seconds left on the clock in a tie game, nothing of note happens. There's just not enough time to get off a decent shot. That must have been what Indiana was thinking, too.
3. Alex Barlow (Butler). Clearly, if there's a late, dramatic shot in a big game, odds are that Butler was on the winning side and Indiana was on the losing side. Butler handed the Hoosiers their first loss of the season way back on December 15th when former walk-on Alex Barlow hit the go-ahead layup with seconds remaining in overtime to stun the #1 team in the country. And somehow this wasn't even the biggest shot by a Butler player this season.
2. Ben Brust (Wisconsin). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1. Roosevelt Jones (Butler). This shot, this play, and this game all come together to form the most iconic moment of the 2012-2013 season. On one side, there's the Butler Bulldogs, whose storybook rise under Brad Stevens couldn't have ever been scripted by anyone because that person would've been fired by his editor for wasting precious company hours on fairy tales. On the other side, there's the Gonzaga Bulldogs, the original Cinderella team, who lost this game in heartbreaking fashion but haven't lost another one since, en route to an undefeated conference season and an improbable #1 ranking. And then take a step back to realize that the Game/Moment of the Year didn't feature a blue-blood powerhouse like Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, or Kansas, but rather two programs named Butler and Gonzaga. This is college basketball, right here. Dick Vitale (perhaps unintentionally) summarizes it best when, during the postgame scrum, he shouts, "Are you serious, America?!"
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Handing Out Awards for the Baseball Offseason
Pitchers and catchers don't report for another three weeks and a few key free agents have yet to sign contracts (looking at you, Michael Bourn and Kyle Lohse). But most teams have completed their offseason plans, making this an appropriate time to dish out awards to honor the best (and worst) of baseball's winter months.
Best Trade: goes to the Washington Nationals, who gave up one pitcher from the low minor leagues to acquire Denard Span from the Minnesota Twins. Span is under team control for three more seasons at a very reasonable rate and he's a perfect fit for the Nationals as a speedy and defensively-sound center fielder. His presence keeps Bryce Harper and Jayson Werth in the corners (where they belong) and allowed the team to trade away Michael Morse (restocking the farm system).
Worst Trade: goes to the Kansas City Royals. They gave up their best trade chip, minor league star Wil Myers, for two years of James Shields, who probably won't even be enough to get the Royals to the playoffs in 2013. Not when their other starting pitchers are Jeremy Guthrie, Ervin Santana, Bruce Chen, and Luke Hochevar. If the Royals were going to go "all in," they should have pushed all their chips to the middle of the table instead of just their best one.
Boldest Move: goes to the Toronto Blue Jays, who saw a window of opportunity in the AL East and decided to go for it. They dipped into their farm system to trade for R.A. Dickey, Jose Reyes, Josh Johnson, and Mark Buehrle without giving up any significant pieces from their major league roster. It's a huge financial risk but one that makes a lot of sense.
Best Free Agent Value: goes to the Toronto Blue Jays, for signing Melky Cabrera to a two-year deal worth $14 million. Melky doesn't have to be the All-Star player he was last year for this contract to be a good investment. If he does get back to that level though, this will be a huge steal.
Most Depressing Rumor: goes to the Colorado Rockies, for this doozy a few days ago: "The club is 'aggressively pursuing' free agent right-handers Carl Pavano and Derek Lowe..."
The "Chone Figgins Award" for the Worst Free Agent Contract: goes to the Los Angeles Angels, for signing Josh Hamilton to a five-year deal worth $125 million. They're already paying Albert Pujols a Scrooge McDuck-sized fortune for his decline years; now add Hamilton to the ledger, and things could get ugly fast.
The "Adrian Beltre Award" for the Best Free Agent Contract Worth More Than $60 Million: goes to the Atlanta Braves, for signing B.J. Upton to a five-year deal worth $75 million. He gives the Braves a fantastic defensive outfield and provides the right-handed power and speed that their lineup needed. And he's still only 28 years old, so he could theoretically have a few peak seasons left. Upton at this contract is a significantly better deal than Hamilton for $50 million more.
The "George Steinbrenner Award" for the Craziest Spending Spree: goes to the Los Angeles Dodgers, for signing ... well, almost everyone. They inked Zack Greinke to a six-year, $147 million deal. They paid a lump sum of $25.7 million to a Japanese team just for the right to negotiate with left-handed pitcher Hyun-Jin Ryu, and then they signed him for another $36 million over six years. Even mediocre reliever Brandon League got $22.5 million over three years to serve as the team's closer. And all of this came on the heels of a money-crazed summer that saw the Dodgers trade for the bloated contracts of Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford, Josh Beckett, and Hanley Ramirez.
The "Addition by Subtraction Award" for Wisely Letting Free Agents Walk: goes to the Detroit Tigers, for showing Delmon Young and Jose Valverde the door. Their play, and their antics, won't be missed.
The "Raul Ibanez Award (Part 1)" for Acquiring the Most Unathletic and/or Slowest Players: goes to the Seattle Mariners, who successfully cornered this market by bringing in Michael Morse, Kendrys Morales, Jason Bay, and Raul Ibanez.
The "Raul Ibanez Award (Part 2)" for Acquiring the Oldest Players: goes to the New York Yankees, who signed Kevin Youkilis (33), Hiroki Kuroda (37), Ichiro Suzuki (39), Andy Pettitte (40), and Mariano Rivera (43).
The "Paula Abdul Award" for "...I'm sorry, but what are they doing?": goes to the Arizona Diamondbacks. Seriously, what are they doing? They entered the offseason with too many outfielders, so they've been blatantly trying to trade away their best one, Justin Upton for months now -- without any success. But somehow they found room in the outfield to sign Cody Ross -- a glorified platoon bat -- for three years and $21 million. Hard to believe Justin was a fan of that acquisition. Plus the D'Backs traded away perhaps their top pitching prospect and first-round pick from 2011, Trevor Bauer, for a minor league shortstop named Didi Gregorius. There doesn't seem to be a coherent plan in Arizona.
The "2013 Reunion Tour Award" for Getting the Band Back Together: goes to the San Francisco Giants, for re-signing Marco Scutaro, Angel Pagan, and Jeremy Affeldt, three key players from their championship run.
The "Juan Pierre Award" for Sacrificing Quality For Quantity: goes to the Boston Red Sox, who apparently ignored the "10 Items or Less" sign at the checkout counter. They went binge shopping and acquired catcher David Ross, first baseman Mike Napoli, shortstop Stephen Drew, outfielders Shane Victorino and Jonny Gomes, starter Ryan Dempster, and relievers Joel Hanrahan and Koji Uehara. They might not be any better in 2013, but at least they won't be any better with a whole new cast of fun players.
And Finally, the Award for the Single Worst Offseason: goes to the Philadelphia Phillies in a unanimous decision. They managed to acquire both Michael Young and Delmon Young. On purpose.
Best Trade: goes to the Washington Nationals, who gave up one pitcher from the low minor leagues to acquire Denard Span from the Minnesota Twins. Span is under team control for three more seasons at a very reasonable rate and he's a perfect fit for the Nationals as a speedy and defensively-sound center fielder. His presence keeps Bryce Harper and Jayson Werth in the corners (where they belong) and allowed the team to trade away Michael Morse (restocking the farm system).
Worst Trade: goes to the Kansas City Royals. They gave up their best trade chip, minor league star Wil Myers, for two years of James Shields, who probably won't even be enough to get the Royals to the playoffs in 2013. Not when their other starting pitchers are Jeremy Guthrie, Ervin Santana, Bruce Chen, and Luke Hochevar. If the Royals were going to go "all in," they should have pushed all their chips to the middle of the table instead of just their best one.
Boldest Move: goes to the Toronto Blue Jays, who saw a window of opportunity in the AL East and decided to go for it. They dipped into their farm system to trade for R.A. Dickey, Jose Reyes, Josh Johnson, and Mark Buehrle without giving up any significant pieces from their major league roster. It's a huge financial risk but one that makes a lot of sense.
Best Free Agent Value: goes to the Toronto Blue Jays, for signing Melky Cabrera to a two-year deal worth $14 million. Melky doesn't have to be the All-Star player he was last year for this contract to be a good investment. If he does get back to that level though, this will be a huge steal.
Most Depressing Rumor: goes to the Colorado Rockies, for this doozy a few days ago: "The club is 'aggressively pursuing' free agent right-handers Carl Pavano and Derek Lowe..."
The "Chone Figgins Award" for the Worst Free Agent Contract: goes to the Los Angeles Angels, for signing Josh Hamilton to a five-year deal worth $125 million. They're already paying Albert Pujols a Scrooge McDuck-sized fortune for his decline years; now add Hamilton to the ledger, and things could get ugly fast.
The "Adrian Beltre Award" for the Best Free Agent Contract Worth More Than $60 Million: goes to the Atlanta Braves, for signing B.J. Upton to a five-year deal worth $75 million. He gives the Braves a fantastic defensive outfield and provides the right-handed power and speed that their lineup needed. And he's still only 28 years old, so he could theoretically have a few peak seasons left. Upton at this contract is a significantly better deal than Hamilton for $50 million more.
The "George Steinbrenner Award" for the Craziest Spending Spree: goes to the Los Angeles Dodgers, for signing ... well, almost everyone. They inked Zack Greinke to a six-year, $147 million deal. They paid a lump sum of $25.7 million to a Japanese team just for the right to negotiate with left-handed pitcher Hyun-Jin Ryu, and then they signed him for another $36 million over six years. Even mediocre reliever Brandon League got $22.5 million over three years to serve as the team's closer. And all of this came on the heels of a money-crazed summer that saw the Dodgers trade for the bloated contracts of Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford, Josh Beckett, and Hanley Ramirez.
The "Addition by Subtraction Award" for Wisely Letting Free Agents Walk: goes to the Detroit Tigers, for showing Delmon Young and Jose Valverde the door. Their play, and their antics, won't be missed.
The "Raul Ibanez Award (Part 1)" for Acquiring the Most Unathletic and/or Slowest Players: goes to the Seattle Mariners, who successfully cornered this market by bringing in Michael Morse, Kendrys Morales, Jason Bay, and Raul Ibanez.
The "Raul Ibanez Award (Part 2)" for Acquiring the Oldest Players: goes to the New York Yankees, who signed Kevin Youkilis (33), Hiroki Kuroda (37), Ichiro Suzuki (39), Andy Pettitte (40), and Mariano Rivera (43).
The "Paula Abdul Award" for "...I'm sorry, but what are they doing?": goes to the Arizona Diamondbacks. Seriously, what are they doing? They entered the offseason with too many outfielders, so they've been blatantly trying to trade away their best one, Justin Upton for months now -- without any success. But somehow they found room in the outfield to sign Cody Ross -- a glorified platoon bat -- for three years and $21 million. Hard to believe Justin was a fan of that acquisition. Plus the D'Backs traded away perhaps their top pitching prospect and first-round pick from 2011, Trevor Bauer, for a minor league shortstop named Didi Gregorius. There doesn't seem to be a coherent plan in Arizona.
The "2013 Reunion Tour Award" for Getting the Band Back Together: goes to the San Francisco Giants, for re-signing Marco Scutaro, Angel Pagan, and Jeremy Affeldt, three key players from their championship run.
The "Juan Pierre Award" for Sacrificing Quality For Quantity: goes to the Boston Red Sox, who apparently ignored the "10 Items or Less" sign at the checkout counter. They went binge shopping and acquired catcher David Ross, first baseman Mike Napoli, shortstop Stephen Drew, outfielders Shane Victorino and Jonny Gomes, starter Ryan Dempster, and relievers Joel Hanrahan and Koji Uehara. They might not be any better in 2013, but at least they won't be any better with a whole new cast of fun players.
And Finally, the Award for the Single Worst Offseason: goes to the Philadelphia Phillies in a unanimous decision. They managed to acquire both Michael Young and Delmon Young. On purpose.
Monday, November 12, 2012
My MLB Awards Ballot
The list of baseball awards that are handed out each November keeps growing, from Gold Gloves and Silver Sluggers to Coach of the Year, Rookie of the Year, and even the Rolaids Relief Man Award. But only two really matter: the MVP and the Cy Young, recognizing the best player and best pitcher in each league. Because in fifteen years, some of these players might find themselves on a Hall of Fame ballot, and writers will judge their candidacies on how they performed in these awards. This stuff matters. And if I had a vote, here's how I would use it.
AMERICAN LEAGUE MOST VALUABLE PLAYER
1. Mike Trout, Center Field, Los Angeles Angels
Trout beats out Miguel Cabrera, and by a fair margin. Cabrera did have a very slight advantage at the plate (but not by much). Trout more than made up for that gap by being one of the best defensive players in the league at a valuable position. For good measure, Trout also piled up additional value on the basepaths as an unstoppable runner. Cabrera played in more games because Trout missed April, but Trout ended up with only 58 fewer plate appearances, a negligible number. Trout had one of the most sensational seasons in baseball history and deserves to be recognized.
2. Miguel Cabrera, Third Base, Detroit Tigers
Cabrera deserves to finish in second place because of his unparalleled offensive numbers: a .999 OPS, 44 home runs, 377 total bases, and of course the Triple Crown. He doesn't impact the game in as many ways as Trout, particularly on defense (he's faking it at third base) and on the bases (no basestealing to speak of and 28 double plays grounded into). But Cabrera is the best player in baseball when he's standing in the batter's box, and that counts for something.
3. Robinson Cano, Second Base, New York Yankees
Cano put up elite offensive statistics (.313/.379/.550 with 33 home runs) while playing second base every day with Gold Glove defense. As the best player on the best team in the American League, Cano might have won this award in a different year.
4. Adrian Beltre, Third Base, Texas Rangers
Beltre and Cano are in a virtual tie for third place. They put up remarkably similar offensive numbers and both played great defense (Beltre at third base), though without adding any baserunning value. Cano wins the tiebreaker on account of positional scarcity. AL third basemen as a group hit .257/.315/.405, while second basemen hit just .244/.309/.365, making Cano's contributions slightly more valuable given his peers at his position.
5. Josh Hamilton, Center/Left Field, Texas Rangers
Hamilton looked like he was a shoo-in to win this award after the first two months of the season. Unfortunately, he finished the year poorly, dropping his line down to .285/.354/.577 with 43 home runs. Setting his flaws aside, those are still excellent numbers.
Honorable Mentions
Prince Fielder, First Base, Detroit Tigers
Justin Verlander, Starting Pitcher, Detroit Tigers
Adam Jones, Center Fielder, Baltimore Orioles
Joe Mauer, Catcher, Minnesota Twins
Edwin Encarnacion, Designated Hitter, Toronto Blue Jays
AMERICAN LEAGUE CY YOUNG
1. Justin Verlander, Detroit Tigers
Here are two pitcher seasons:
Player A: 251 innings, 2.40 ERA, 250 strikeouts, 57 walks, 0.92 WHIP
Player B: 238.1 innings, 2.64 ERA, 239 strikeouts, 60 walks, 1.06 WHIP
Player A and Player B had very similar seasons. Player A was slightly better. But Player B wasn't far behind. He was short about two starts' worth of innings, and a few more baserunners over the course of the season led to a handful more runs.
Player A is Justin Verlander in 2011, when he was deemed worthy of BOTH the Cy Young Award and the MVP. Player B is Justin Verlander in 2012. There was hardly even a dropoff from his MVP season. It's hard to argue that anyone else deserves this year's Cy Young more than Verlander.
2. David Price, Tampa Bay Rays
Price came the closest to unseating Verlander at the top. His ERA was slightly lower--2.56 compared to 2.64--but that's a meaningless difference considering Verlander threw more innings (238.1 to 211). That's three complete games' worth. Verlander also had the better strikeout-to-walk ratio, lower WHIP, and was subject to a much poorer defense behind him (after all, Miguel Cabrera was manning third base all year). Still, Price's numbers were good enough to win in most seasons. He very well might win next year.
3. Felix Hernandez, Seattle Mariners
Sure, he "only" won 13 games. He also put up a 3.06 ERA in 232 innings with stellar strikeout and walk ratios. And he threw a perfect game. He gets ranked below Price in part because his home is Safeco Field, the most pitcher-friendly ballpark in the American League.
4. Chris Sale, Chicago White Sox
Every once in a while, a pitcher makes the rare conversion from reliever to starter. Chris Sale handled that that transition better than anyone in recent memory. The rail-thin lefty put up a sparkling 3.05 ERA in 192 innings and was one of four AL pitchers to strike out at least a batter per inning.
5. Jered Weaver, Los Angeles Angels
Weaver and Sale had very similar seasons. Weaver did have a slightly lower ERA, but Sale's strikeout rate was far better and Weaver's home ballpark is very pitcher-friendly. It's almost a wash between the two. Neither threw enough innings to challenge the top three on this ballot.
Honorable Mentions
Hiroki Kuroda, New York Yankees
Jake Peavy, Chicago White Sox
Matt Harrison, Texas Rangers
Fernando Rodney, Tampa Bay Rays
C.C. Sabathia, New York Yankees
NATIONAL LEAGUE MOST VALUABLE PLAYER
1. Buster Posey, Catcher, San Francisco Giants
This National League race is very very close. Unlike Trout and Verlander in the AL, there doesn't seem to be an obvious selection here. Posey offers the best balance of offensive production (.336/.408/.549) with defensive contributions (as a a catcher). His team also won its division, unlike the next few candidates. Posey isn't the obvious choice, but he looks like the best choice.
2. Ryan Braun, Left Field, Milwaukee Brewers
Braun's 2012 was almost identical to his 2011. And Braun won this award in 2011. So what changed? Without Prince Fielder, his Brewers missed the playoffs. There's some voter fatigue. And the elephant in the room: he tested positive for an illegal substance late last year but wasn't disciplined thanks to mysterious irregularities. Hopefully, that won't affect Braun's vote total. Braun should finish in the top three.
3. Yadier Molina, Catcher, St. Louis Cardinals
Molina is the wild card in this race. Compare him and Posey:
Posey: .336/.408/.549, 24 home runs
Molina: .315/.373/.479, 22 home runs
Posey has a slight offensive edge. But Molina is far better defensively. In fact, he's the consensus best defensive catcher in baseball, and completely shuts down opponents' baserunning. So how much is that advantage worth? Is it enough to overcome that slight offensive gap? Because it's impossible to quantify, Molina ends up at third on this ballot. He very well could deserve to be higher. Catcher defense is just too hard to measure.
4. Andrew McCutchen, Center Field, Pittsburgh Pirates
What can you say about McCutchen? A .327 average, .400 on-base percentage, and .553 slugging percentage. 31 homers. 20 steals. A fantastic all-around player. He should win this award someday.
5. David Wright, Third Base, New York Mets
Unfortunately, he plays for the Mets. If he didn't, perhaps more people would have noticed his stellar season: a .306 average, a .391 OBP, 21 homers, and great defense at third base for a terrible team in a pitchers' park. Not too shabby.
Honorable Mentions
Chase Headley, Third Base, San Diego Padres
Aaron Hill, Second Base, Arizona Diamondbacks
Aramis Ramirez, Third Base, Milwaukee Brewers
Michael Bourn, Center Field, Atlanta Braves
Matt Holliday, Left Field, St. Louis Cardinals
NATIONAL LEAGUE CY YOUNG
1. Clayton Kershaw, Los Angeles Dodgers
This race is literally a toss-up. See for yourself:
Player A: 233.2 innings, 2.73 ERA, 230 strikeouts, 54 walks, 1.05 WHIP
Player B: 227.2 innings, 2.53 ERA, 229 strikeouts, 63 walks, 1.02 WHIP
It's very close. Because the difference in innings is basically negligible, I prefer Player B for his slightly better rates. Player B is Clayton Kershaw. Advanced metrics liked Kershaw better, too. But this is splitting hairs.
2. R.A. Dickey, New York Mets
Player A in that comparison above is Dickey, and one can easily make the case that he deserves to be #1 on the ballot. He has the benefit of being a 37-year-old knuckleballer with a feel-good story, and there's probably some voter fatigue with Kershaw, who won the Cy Young last year too. Kershaw was just a smidge better than Dickey. If Dickey wins the award, it'll be a perfectly defensible decision.
3. Gio Gonzalez, Washington Nationals
Gonzalez wasn't far behind Kershaw and Dickey. He owned the best strikeout rate in the National League and though he failed to throw 200 innings, he did post a nice 2.89 ERA. Gonzalez is a darkhorse candidate to steal the award thanks to his 21 wins and a potential split vote between Kershaw and Dickey. That wouldn't be fair to the top two, who were on a tier of their own.
4. Johnny Cueto, Cincinnati Reds
The ultimate low-profile workhorse. Cueto quietly piled up 217 stellar innings with a 2.78 ERA. The advanced metrics don't like him because his strikeout rate is low and he seems to enjoy a lot of luck, but he gets the job done.
5. Matt Cain, San Francisco Giants
Cain's numbers were almost identical to Cueto's: a 2.79 ERA in 219.1 innings, and he too didn't enjoy gaudy strikeout numbers. Cueto gets ranked higher because he pitches in homer-happy Great American Ballpark, while Cain benefits from the spacious confines of AT&T Park.
Honorable Mentions:
Kyle Lohse, St. Louis Cardinals
Cole Hamels, Philadelphia Phillies
Cliff Lee, Philadelphia Phillies
Craig Kimbrel, Atlanta Braves
Aroldis Chapman, Cincinnati Reds
AMERICAN LEAGUE MOST VALUABLE PLAYER
1. Mike Trout, Center Field, Los Angeles Angels
Trout beats out Miguel Cabrera, and by a fair margin. Cabrera did have a very slight advantage at the plate (but not by much). Trout more than made up for that gap by being one of the best defensive players in the league at a valuable position. For good measure, Trout also piled up additional value on the basepaths as an unstoppable runner. Cabrera played in more games because Trout missed April, but Trout ended up with only 58 fewer plate appearances, a negligible number. Trout had one of the most sensational seasons in baseball history and deserves to be recognized.
2. Miguel Cabrera, Third Base, Detroit Tigers
Cabrera deserves to finish in second place because of his unparalleled offensive numbers: a .999 OPS, 44 home runs, 377 total bases, and of course the Triple Crown. He doesn't impact the game in as many ways as Trout, particularly on defense (he's faking it at third base) and on the bases (no basestealing to speak of and 28 double plays grounded into). But Cabrera is the best player in baseball when he's standing in the batter's box, and that counts for something.
3. Robinson Cano, Second Base, New York Yankees
Cano put up elite offensive statistics (.313/.379/.550 with 33 home runs) while playing second base every day with Gold Glove defense. As the best player on the best team in the American League, Cano might have won this award in a different year.
4. Adrian Beltre, Third Base, Texas Rangers
Beltre and Cano are in a virtual tie for third place. They put up remarkably similar offensive numbers and both played great defense (Beltre at third base), though without adding any baserunning value. Cano wins the tiebreaker on account of positional scarcity. AL third basemen as a group hit .257/.315/.405, while second basemen hit just .244/.309/.365, making Cano's contributions slightly more valuable given his peers at his position.
5. Josh Hamilton, Center/Left Field, Texas Rangers
Hamilton looked like he was a shoo-in to win this award after the first two months of the season. Unfortunately, he finished the year poorly, dropping his line down to .285/.354/.577 with 43 home runs. Setting his flaws aside, those are still excellent numbers.
Honorable Mentions
Prince Fielder, First Base, Detroit Tigers
Justin Verlander, Starting Pitcher, Detroit Tigers
Adam Jones, Center Fielder, Baltimore Orioles
Joe Mauer, Catcher, Minnesota Twins
Edwin Encarnacion, Designated Hitter, Toronto Blue Jays
AMERICAN LEAGUE CY YOUNG
1. Justin Verlander, Detroit Tigers
Here are two pitcher seasons:
Player A: 251 innings, 2.40 ERA, 250 strikeouts, 57 walks, 0.92 WHIP
Player B: 238.1 innings, 2.64 ERA, 239 strikeouts, 60 walks, 1.06 WHIP
Player A and Player B had very similar seasons. Player A was slightly better. But Player B wasn't far behind. He was short about two starts' worth of innings, and a few more baserunners over the course of the season led to a handful more runs.
Player A is Justin Verlander in 2011, when he was deemed worthy of BOTH the Cy Young Award and the MVP. Player B is Justin Verlander in 2012. There was hardly even a dropoff from his MVP season. It's hard to argue that anyone else deserves this year's Cy Young more than Verlander.
2. David Price, Tampa Bay Rays
Price came the closest to unseating Verlander at the top. His ERA was slightly lower--2.56 compared to 2.64--but that's a meaningless difference considering Verlander threw more innings (238.1 to 211). That's three complete games' worth. Verlander also had the better strikeout-to-walk ratio, lower WHIP, and was subject to a much poorer defense behind him (after all, Miguel Cabrera was manning third base all year). Still, Price's numbers were good enough to win in most seasons. He very well might win next year.
3. Felix Hernandez, Seattle Mariners
Sure, he "only" won 13 games. He also put up a 3.06 ERA in 232 innings with stellar strikeout and walk ratios. And he threw a perfect game. He gets ranked below Price in part because his home is Safeco Field, the most pitcher-friendly ballpark in the American League.
4. Chris Sale, Chicago White Sox
Every once in a while, a pitcher makes the rare conversion from reliever to starter. Chris Sale handled that that transition better than anyone in recent memory. The rail-thin lefty put up a sparkling 3.05 ERA in 192 innings and was one of four AL pitchers to strike out at least a batter per inning.
5. Jered Weaver, Los Angeles Angels
Weaver and Sale had very similar seasons. Weaver did have a slightly lower ERA, but Sale's strikeout rate was far better and Weaver's home ballpark is very pitcher-friendly. It's almost a wash between the two. Neither threw enough innings to challenge the top three on this ballot.
Honorable Mentions
Hiroki Kuroda, New York Yankees
Jake Peavy, Chicago White Sox
Matt Harrison, Texas Rangers
Fernando Rodney, Tampa Bay Rays
C.C. Sabathia, New York Yankees
NATIONAL LEAGUE MOST VALUABLE PLAYER
1. Buster Posey, Catcher, San Francisco Giants
2. Ryan Braun, Left Field, Milwaukee Brewers
Braun's 2012 was almost identical to his 2011. And Braun won this award in 2011. So what changed? Without Prince Fielder, his Brewers missed the playoffs. There's some voter fatigue. And the elephant in the room: he tested positive for an illegal substance late last year but wasn't disciplined thanks to mysterious irregularities. Hopefully, that won't affect Braun's vote total. Braun should finish in the top three.
3. Yadier Molina, Catcher, St. Louis Cardinals
Molina is the wild card in this race. Compare him and Posey:
Posey: .336/.408/.549, 24 home runs
Molina: .315/.373/.479, 22 home runs
Posey has a slight offensive edge. But Molina is far better defensively. In fact, he's the consensus best defensive catcher in baseball, and completely shuts down opponents' baserunning. So how much is that advantage worth? Is it enough to overcome that slight offensive gap? Because it's impossible to quantify, Molina ends up at third on this ballot. He very well could deserve to be higher. Catcher defense is just too hard to measure.
4. Andrew McCutchen, Center Field, Pittsburgh Pirates
What can you say about McCutchen? A .327 average, .400 on-base percentage, and .553 slugging percentage. 31 homers. 20 steals. A fantastic all-around player. He should win this award someday.
5. David Wright, Third Base, New York Mets
Unfortunately, he plays for the Mets. If he didn't, perhaps more people would have noticed his stellar season: a .306 average, a .391 OBP, 21 homers, and great defense at third base for a terrible team in a pitchers' park. Not too shabby.
Honorable Mentions
Chase Headley, Third Base, San Diego Padres
Aaron Hill, Second Base, Arizona Diamondbacks
Aramis Ramirez, Third Base, Milwaukee Brewers
Michael Bourn, Center Field, Atlanta Braves
Matt Holliday, Left Field, St. Louis Cardinals
NATIONAL LEAGUE CY YOUNG
1. Clayton Kershaw, Los Angeles Dodgers
This race is literally a toss-up. See for yourself:
Player A: 233.2 innings, 2.73 ERA, 230 strikeouts, 54 walks, 1.05 WHIP
Player B: 227.2 innings, 2.53 ERA, 229 strikeouts, 63 walks, 1.02 WHIP
It's very close. Because the difference in innings is basically negligible, I prefer Player B for his slightly better rates. Player B is Clayton Kershaw. Advanced metrics liked Kershaw better, too. But this is splitting hairs.
2. R.A. Dickey, New York Mets
Player A in that comparison above is Dickey, and one can easily make the case that he deserves to be #1 on the ballot. He has the benefit of being a 37-year-old knuckleballer with a feel-good story, and there's probably some voter fatigue with Kershaw, who won the Cy Young last year too. Kershaw was just a smidge better than Dickey. If Dickey wins the award, it'll be a perfectly defensible decision.
3. Gio Gonzalez, Washington Nationals
Gonzalez wasn't far behind Kershaw and Dickey. He owned the best strikeout rate in the National League and though he failed to throw 200 innings, he did post a nice 2.89 ERA. Gonzalez is a darkhorse candidate to steal the award thanks to his 21 wins and a potential split vote between Kershaw and Dickey. That wouldn't be fair to the top two, who were on a tier of their own.
4. Johnny Cueto, Cincinnati Reds
The ultimate low-profile workhorse. Cueto quietly piled up 217 stellar innings with a 2.78 ERA. The advanced metrics don't like him because his strikeout rate is low and he seems to enjoy a lot of luck, but he gets the job done.
5. Matt Cain, San Francisco Giants
Cain's numbers were almost identical to Cueto's: a 2.79 ERA in 219.1 innings, and he too didn't enjoy gaudy strikeout numbers. Cueto gets ranked higher because he pitches in homer-happy Great American Ballpark, while Cain benefits from the spacious confines of AT&T Park.
Honorable Mentions:
Kyle Lohse, St. Louis Cardinals
Cole Hamels, Philadelphia Phillies
Cliff Lee, Philadelphia Phillies
Craig Kimbrel, Atlanta Braves
Aroldis Chapman, Cincinnati Reds
Friday, October 26, 2012
Fielding Bible Awards Announced
The Fielding Bible Awards do what the Gold Glove Awards should (but don't) do: recognize the best defensive player at each position. Voted on by smart baseball people (Bill James, Peter Gammons, and the like), they are far more legitimate than the Gold Gloves. Those are decided by coaches and managers, and too often they're just given to the previous year's winner or to a mediocre defender with big offensive numbers. Only one Fielding Bible Award is given at each position, not one per league, so the competition is stiff. This year's winners:
Catcher: Yadier Molina, Cardinals
The best defensive catcher in baseball by far, a top-five MVP candidate, and possibly the most valuable defensive player in baseball. He'll rightfully win the Gold Glove, too. Threw out a remarkable 46% of basestealers.
First Base: Mark Teixeira, Yankees
Another typically stellar defensive season from Teixeira, who stands alone as a first baseman who can actually throw to take out lead runners or start double plays. But he may lose the Gold Glove out of everyone's respect for Albert Pujols.
Second Base: Darwin Barney, Cubs
He's another one who might lose the Gold Glove, because of Brandon Phillips' reputation, but Barney tied the major league record for most consecutive error-less games (141).
Third Base: Adrian Beltre, Rangers
Don't think anyone is complaining about this choice. He'll win the Gold Glove, too.
Shortstop: Brendan Ryan, Mariners
Easily the best defensive shortstop in baseball. Here's a player who probably can't win the Gold Glove because of his offense (hit .194 this year). Watching Brendan Ryan's defensive highlights is addicting. His old-school facial hair just completes the package.
Left Field: Alex Gordon, Royals
A unanimous winner, as a third baseman with a cannon arm playing in left field. His toughest competition, Brett Gardner and Carl Crawford, wasn't even on the field for most of the season.
Center Field: Mike Trout, Angels
The first of many, one would imagine.
Right Field: Jason Heyward, Braves
If Heyward loses the Gold Glove, it would be a travesty of the highest order.
Pitcher: Mark Buehrle, Marlins
Buehrle is going to win these fielding awards every year until he finally breaks down and retires.
The Gold Glove winners are announced in a couple of days, and like every year, they're going to be controversial. For the time being, it's nice to recognize the truly elite defensive players at each position without worrying about the politics of voting within baseball.
Catcher: Yadier Molina, Cardinals
The best defensive catcher in baseball by far, a top-five MVP candidate, and possibly the most valuable defensive player in baseball. He'll rightfully win the Gold Glove, too. Threw out a remarkable 46% of basestealers.
First Base: Mark Teixeira, Yankees
Another typically stellar defensive season from Teixeira, who stands alone as a first baseman who can actually throw to take out lead runners or start double plays. But he may lose the Gold Glove out of everyone's respect for Albert Pujols.
Second Base: Darwin Barney, Cubs
He's another one who might lose the Gold Glove, because of Brandon Phillips' reputation, but Barney tied the major league record for most consecutive error-less games (141).
Third Base: Adrian Beltre, Rangers
Don't think anyone is complaining about this choice. He'll win the Gold Glove, too.
Shortstop: Brendan Ryan, Mariners
Easily the best defensive shortstop in baseball. Here's a player who probably can't win the Gold Glove because of his offense (hit .194 this year). Watching Brendan Ryan's defensive highlights is addicting. His old-school facial hair just completes the package.
Left Field: Alex Gordon, Royals
A unanimous winner, as a third baseman with a cannon arm playing in left field. His toughest competition, Brett Gardner and Carl Crawford, wasn't even on the field for most of the season.
Center Field: Mike Trout, Angels
The first of many, one would imagine.
Right Field: Jason Heyward, Braves
If Heyward loses the Gold Glove, it would be a travesty of the highest order.
Pitcher: Mark Buehrle, Marlins
Buehrle is going to win these fielding awards every year until he finally breaks down and retires.
The Gold Glove winners are announced in a couple of days, and like every year, they're going to be controversial. For the time being, it's nice to recognize the truly elite defensive players at each position without worrying about the politics of voting within baseball.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Verlander and Cabrera
Would the Tigers still have beaten the Athletics in their five-game playoff series without Miguel Cabrera?
Probably. He reached base six times in five games, driving in one run and scoring another.
Would the Tigers still have beaten the Athletics in their five-game playoff series without Justin Verlander?
Almost certainly not. He threw 16 innings (including a complete-game shutout in the deciding Game 5 on the road), allowed one run in the series, and basically got the Tigers two of their three victories by himself.
I still believe Miguel Cabrera was more valuable to the Tigers than Justin Verlander over the course of the entire regular season, and he should finish higher on the MVP ballot because of that.
But in a few weeks, Cabrera will win the MVP over Mike Trout. And writers who voted for Cabrera will defend their decision by claiming "Cabrera carried his team," which is what real MVPs do. At that point, I will think back to this Detroit/Oakland playoff series, and I will wonder, "Did Cabrera carry Verlander, or was it Verlander who carried Cabrera?" And I think I know the answer to my question.
Probably. He reached base six times in five games, driving in one run and scoring another.
Would the Tigers still have beaten the Athletics in their five-game playoff series without Justin Verlander?
Almost certainly not. He threw 16 innings (including a complete-game shutout in the deciding Game 5 on the road), allowed one run in the series, and basically got the Tigers two of their three victories by himself.
I still believe Miguel Cabrera was more valuable to the Tigers than Justin Verlander over the course of the entire regular season, and he should finish higher on the MVP ballot because of that.
But in a few weeks, Cabrera will win the MVP over Mike Trout. And writers who voted for Cabrera will defend their decision by claiming "Cabrera carried his team," which is what real MVPs do. At that point, I will think back to this Detroit/Oakland playoff series, and I will wonder, "Did Cabrera carry Verlander, or was it Verlander who carried Cabrera?" And I think I know the answer to my question.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Why Mike Trout Should Be The MVP
Let me preface this by saying: Miguel Cabrera is awesome. He won the Triple Crown, he's going to the Hall of Fame, and he's either the best or second-best hitter in baseball (depending on what you think of Joey Votto). That's amazing. So I don't mean to disparage him when I say that he's not the American League's Most Valuable Player this year. I'm saying that, as good as Cabrera has been, Mike Trout has been even better, which perhaps starts to describe how truly epic the Angels outfielder's season has been.
Miguel Cabrera is the best hitter in baseball. Mike Trout is the best player. He's almost Cabrera's equal at the plate (more on that later...) and is miles better than Cabrera at every other facet of the game. Advanced metrics like Wins Above Replacement can quantify Trout's advantage in value over Cabrera. I don't even think that angle of the pro-Trout argument is necessary. Common sense says that Mike Trout should win the American League MVP, and it really should be unanimous.
But a lot of people disagree. So here are the most popular MVP arguments made for Cabrera and against Trout, and why most of them are either misleading or complete bogus.
"Cabrera won the Triple Crown, so he deserves the MVP."
No, he doesn't. Winning the Triple Crown is an awesome historical achievement. It's also three arbitrary statistics pulled out of a hat and given a cool name. What if the three statistics were Runs, Stolen Bases, and Spectacular Home-Run-Robbing Catches? Then Mike Trout would have just won the "Triple Crown." It hasn't been done in a long time? Since 1967, you say? Sure, then my counter would be: Mike Trout just became the first player EVER to hit 30 home runs, score 125 runs, and steal 45 bases. If one wants to play the 'historical' card, well, it works both ways.
Now, it is relevant that Cabrera put up great numbers in the Triple Crown categories: a .330 batting average, 44 home runs, and 139 RBIs. But the MVP is an individual award, and two of those statistics are poor evaluators of individual value. Batting average counts all hits as the same, doesn't include sacrifices or walks, and only counts double plays as one out. RBIs are dependent on opportunity, luck, and where a batter hits in the lineup. These statistics, while mainstream, just aren't the best way to determine value.
And if people cite Cabrera's advantage in RBIs over Trout (139 to 83) as evidence of his superior baseball skills, well, those people should be flogged. Cabrera hit in the middle of the order while Trout hit in the leadoff spot ahead of the Angels' worst hitters. If you're going to look at RBIs, then you're obligated to also look at runs scored. Trout led the league in that category with 129 in 139 games played. Either you consider both RBIs and runs, or you thrown them both away. It makes no sense to immortalize RBIs as part of the Triple Crown and ignore runs. They're the two sides of the same statistical concept.
"Cabrera made the playoffs, and Trout didn't."
Reaching the playoffs is a team accomplishment, not an individual one, so it doesn't have much of a place in a debate over an individual award like the MVP. Is it Trout's fault that the Angels had a terrible bullpen, or that Ervin Santana had a thing for giving up home runs, or that Mark Trumbo forgot how to hit after the All-Star Break?
Anyway, here's the best part. The Angels went 6-14 without Trout on the roster; in other words, they were on pace for 48.6 wins over a full season, which obviously would have been the worst record in baseball. The Angels called up Trout from the minor leagues on April 28th, and from that day on they went 83-59. Over a full season, that that's a 94.6-win pace, which would've been good enough to make the playoffs. I'm obviously not saying that Trout alone was responsible for that massive swing in win total, but traditionalists often ask themselves the following hypothetical question when deciding on an MVP: "Where would Team X be without Player Y?" Well, we kind of know the answer in this case. Look at the difference between the two Angels teams.
But on the most simple level? Cabrera's Tigers finished with 88 wins in the easiest division in baseball. Trout's Angels finished with 89 in the toughest division in baseball. The fact that Cabrera is going to the postseason instead of Trout is completely attributable to a poorly-constructed divisional system with an unbalanced schedule. The Angels are better than the Tigers. Cabrera supporters simply can't make any claim that involves playoffs.
"Cabrera carried his team."
The worst argument of them all. A) it's subjective, B) it's completely un-provable, C) it implies that Trout didn't do the same, and worst of all D) it implies that Cabrera had no help. Are we completely ignoring the fact that the Tigers also had the best pitcher in baseball, Justin Verlander, and one of the best hitters in baseball, Prince Fielder? Did they not do any carrying of their own? What about Detroit's 3.10 team ERA in the final month of the season, 2nd best in the American League? Did that have nothing to do with the team's late-season run at the division title?
"Cabrera helped his team win a division title."
The Tigers get to play in the AL Central. Its second-place team was the White Sox, who won 85 games, which would've been good enough for only a 4th-place finish in the other two AL divisions. It's the only division in baseball that had three teams win less than 45% of their games. Detroit got to play dozens and dozens of games against the Twins, Royals, and Indians, three of the worst pitching teams in baseball. Perhaps one of the most unimpressive, meaningless titles that can be bestowed on any team is "2012 AL Central Champions."
"Cabrera was better than Trout when it mattered most: September."
It's true that Cabrera was a better hitter than Trout over the final month. He hit .333/.395/.675. But Trout wasn't exactly a slouch: he hit .289/.400/.500 over the same period (and his OBP was better than Cabrera's, so he was still committing fewer outs). And this is implying that all value is derived from hitting, which isn't true; even when Trout's slumping, he's providing value with his legs and glove. That's not the case for Cabrera.
Then there's the assumption that games in September somehow "matter more" than games in other, inferior months. Nope. Wins in, say, May and July (months when Trout was a better hitter than Cabrera) count just the same as wins in September. Just ask the Angels: they essentially missed the playoffs because of a bad stretch in April.
"Trout didn't play in April, so Cabrera played more games."
This is the converse of the previous argument. You shouldn't be able to make both claims simultaneously. You can't say "September counts way more than every other month!" while also saying, "Trout didn't play in April, so he can't win!" Totally incongruous. Either the months all count the same or they don't.
Cabrera did play in more games than Trout. Trout still came to the plate 639 times, compared to 697 for Cabrera. Plus, Cabrera had a lower on-base percentage than Trout (.393 to .399) and grounded into more double plays (28 to 7), so whatever small advantage he has in playing time is totally nullified by the extra outs he made. Cabrera did play roughly 100 more innings in the field, but Trout was such a better defender in his innings at a more important position that the difference barely matters.
Finally, in 2010, Josh Hamilton won the MVP even though he played in only 133 games. That was 17 games fewer than the second-place finisher, but voters agreed that Hamilton was so much better in his fewer games that he merited the award. Who finished second that year? Miguel Cabrera. It's not like there's no precedent.
"Cabrera changed positions so that the Tigers could sign Prince Fielder, helping his team win."
Heck, if Cabrera didn't change positions for Fielder, what would that say about him? No, hang on, that's not the point. People are suddenly heaping credit on Cabrera for what they perceive as selflessness when he moved to third base to allow Prince Fielder to play first. They've even gone so far as to credit Cabrera with the value Fielder brought to the team, as if Cabrera was solely responsible for signing him and paying his salary. No, the Tigers wanted Cabrera to DH; he didn't consider himself a DH and wanted to move to third instead. The Tigers let him. This created an offensive hole at DH (ughh Delmon Young, the worst) and a defensive liability at third. The Tigers probably would have won more games if Cabrera had been a DH and the team had gotten a defensively sound third baseman to help the pitching staff prevent runs.
I'm not trying to detract from Cabrera; his personal value is obviously greater as a third baseman rather than a DH. This whole angle is just hopeless flawed. Thirty times this year, Trout moved off center field so that his manager could field a better team. No one recognizes that or gives him credit for it. There's just no evidence to suggest that Cabrera is any more of a "team player" or "selfless" than Trout. This is stupid, we're done with this one.
"Cabrera deserves it. Trout can win Rookie of the Year; he has a whole career to win MVPs."
Awards aren't given out based on career achievement or whose turn it is. They're based on merit, and Trout is the more deserving candidate. Hey voters, if you think Cabrera "deserves" an MVP, why didn't you give it to him last year?
Cabrera, 2012: .330/.393/.606/1.033, 166 OPS+
Cabrera, 2011: .344/.448/.586/.999, 179 OPS+
Cabrera's 2011 was in some ways better than his 2012. The only thing that's better this year is the sexy stats: the home runs and RBIs, probably because Cabrera now has Austin Jackson in front of him and Prince Fielder behind him. So Cabrera maybe should have won the MVP last year, but the voters thought that his teammate, ace Justin Verlander, was more valuable. He won the MVP instead. This year, Verlander is having basically the exact same season, but everyone is falling over themselves to crown Miguel Cabrera king of the world. If everyone decided Verlander was the more valuable Tiger just last year, and Verlander basically just repeated last year's season, why has Cabrera suddenly leapfrogged Verlander in terms of value? I will tell you why: because of home runs and RBIs. Cabrera didn't have enough to win the MVP in 2011, and now he has enough to win in 2012. Home runs and RBIs. They're all anyone cares about. It wasn't fair to 2011 Miguel Cabrera and it isn't fair to 2012 Mike Trout.
"Picking Trout over Cabrera puts too much stock into Wins Above Replacement."
No one's saying that the leader in Wins Above Replacement (a rough measurement of a player's all-around value) should automatically win the MVP. That's a straw man argument. WAR just backs up what we observe: that Mike Trout is the most valuable player in the league because he impacts every facet of the game at the highest level.
WAR is just one small piece of the vast pie of evidence supporting Trout's case. It is, however, one of the most delicious. There are two different ways of calculating WAR, but both methods have Trout at the top of this year's leaderboard (with either 10.4 or 10.7 WAR; no other player had more than 8). Baseball Reference.com has Trout's 10.7 WAR season as tied for the 20th-best season by a position player in baseball history (tied with Willie Mays in 1964 and Ted Williams in 1946). The only players in baseball history who have had better single seasons: Ruth, Hornsby, Yastrzemski, Bonds, Gehrig, Ripken, Wagner, Cobb, Mantle, Morgan, and Mays. And Trout didn't even play a full season. WAR could be overstating Trout's value a little, or even a lot, and 2012 would still rank as a historically elite season.
You don't need WAR to prove Trout is the most valuable player in baseball. It's just the icing on the cake.
"Cabrera was so much better offensively than Trout that baserunning and defense don't matter."
Of all the arguments here, this is the one that's most reasonable. A Cabrera supporter could claim that the superior offensive player should get the nod because there's no exact measurement of Trout's 'baserunning' or 'defensive' value, so we can't be sure.
This is still wrong, because the argument can be made that Trout was just as good a hitter--and perhaps a better hitter--than Miguel Cabrera this year.
First of all, their triple-slash lines are closer than one would expect: .330/.393/.606 for Cabrera compared to .326/.399/.564 for Trout. Cabrera's advantage comes in the slugging department, giving him 377 total bases compared to Trout's 315, but Trout closes that gap with his 49 stolen bases.
Another way to compare the two players at the plate is to look at adjusted-OPS, or OPS+, which takes a player's on-base-plus-slugging% and adjusts it to account for league and park factors. An OPS+ of 100 is league average; every point over or under that represents a percentage point better or worse than average. When you adjust for the fact that Cabrera played his home games in a park slightly favorable to offense, while Trout played his home games in a ballpark that suppresses offense, the American League leaders in OPS+ this year looks like this:
1. Mike Trout: 171
2. Miguel Cabrera: 166
However, a lot of people don't like obscure context-neutral statistics when it come to MVP voting. So there's another very simple metric that includes context, called RE24. An article about it was recently posted at Fangraphs.com. RE24 is the difference in run expectancy between the beginning and end of a hitter's at-bat. For example, when a hitter comes to the plate with runners on first and third with two outs, teams are expected to score an average of 0.33 runs in that situation. So a three-run home run would give the hitter a +2.67 bonus in RE24. It works in the opposite way if a hitter detracts from his team's run expectancy, thus losing points. It might seem like Cabrera would lap the field in RE24 because he has so many RBIs, hits for so much power, and is acknowledged as "the last player you'd want to face with men in scoring position."
The American League leader in RE24 is Mike Trout (+56.52 runs). Cabrera ranks fifth (+45.18) after Edwin Encarnacion, Prince Fielder, and Joe Mauer.
Again: this isn't taking baserunning into account, or defense, or position, or competition, or ballpark. This is just a straight-up measurement of how much better-than-average a player is at helping his team score runs. Trout comes out better than Cabrera.
Now throw in the fact that Trout is a 21-year-old rookie center fielder, who is probably the best baserunner and best defensive player in the sport, who plays in a pitcher's park, in the toughest division in baseball, for a team that instantly transformed from a loser into a winner when he was called up, and....why are we still having this discussion?
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
This is the Problem
This might shock you, but the General Manager of the Detroit Tigers, Dave Dombrowski, thinks Miguel Cabrera should be the MVP. When making his case, he had this to say about advanced statistics like Wins Above Replacement that prefer Mike Trout over Cabrera:
"You can use WAR stats and all of that, but when people used to talk about most valuable player, it used to be, ‘Take that player away from the club and see where that club would be.’ You take Miguel Cabrera out of our lineup right now, and you see where we would be.”
That's literally exactly what WAR is.
This is Wikipedia's definition of WAR, with the most relevant part in bold:
"Wins Above Replacement, commonly known as WAR, is a non-standardized sabermetric baseball statistic that is used to show how many more wins a player would give a team as opposed to a "replacement level", or minor league/bench player at that position."
This is the problem with people who discount WAR when it prefers Mike Trout over Cabrera. They throw it away without even trying to understand what it actually is. Even General Managers of baseball teams.
"You can use WAR stats and all of that, but when people used to talk about most valuable player, it used to be, ‘Take that player away from the club and see where that club would be.’ You take Miguel Cabrera out of our lineup right now, and you see where we would be.”
That's literally exactly what WAR is.
This is Wikipedia's definition of WAR, with the most relevant part in bold:
"Wins Above Replacement, commonly known as WAR, is a non-standardized sabermetric baseball statistic that is used to show how many more wins a player would give a team as opposed to a "replacement level", or minor league/bench player at that position."
This is the problem with people who discount WAR when it prefers Mike Trout over Cabrera. They throw it away without even trying to understand what it actually is. Even General Managers of baseball teams.
Friday, September 28, 2012
This Is Bad Logic
ESPN.com had the following poll up on its website:
"Hi, 41% of ESPN.com visitors who took this poll. I have a scenario for you. Pretend Miguel Cabrera finishes the season with 43 home runs, okay? Now, if Josh Hamilton ends up with 42, Cabrera would win the Triple Crown, so he would be your MVP, right? Okay. So if Hamilton finishes with 44 home runs, Cabrera would not win the Triple Crown, so he wouldn't be your MVP, right? All right. Do you not realize that Cabrera's value was exactly the same in both scenarios? Do you not realize that you changed your mind about Cabrera's worthiness for MVP based on a couple extra home runs hit by another player not even in the conversation for MVP? Do you not realize the complete absurdity of using Josh Hamilton's home run total or Joe Mauer's batting average to determine an MVP race between Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout?" At this point, my head would implode and the conversation would end abruptly.
I'm concerned for the future of this country when I see that all but a few states are colored green, meaning they don't understand this logic. Anyway, the 41% aren't the only ones who are wrong. The 30% are wrong too, for picking Cabrera over Trout. The 41% are just wrong AND stupid. The 29%, though? Those guys are groovy. Alaskans, Californians, Utahns, and Mississippians have always been my kind of people.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
How To Make Yourself Look Like An Idiot
Baseball is being seized by an increasingly contentious debate over who should win the American League's Most Valuable Player award. The dividing lines aren't this clear, but for the most part, the "new-school" baseball blogging community prefers Mike Trout of the Angels, while "old-school" sportswriters and analysts for majors sports organizations and newspapers favor Miguel Cabrera of the Tigers. The argument should, by all rights, be settled with this succinct line of logic:
Miguel Cabrera has been a slightly better hitter than Mike Trout in 2012. However, hitting is only one of baseball's three dimensions, and Trout has a sizable advantage in the other two (baserunning and defense). Cabrera's small edge in hitting is not enough to overcome Trout's massive edge when it comes to baserunning and defense. The award is not titled 'Most Valuable Hitter,' But 'Most Valuable Player.' Trout is the MVP.
There are a whole bunch of advanced statistics and metrics that can actually prove the above statement numerically, but truthfully those shouldn't be necessary. These are very simple concepts about the nature of baseball that we're dealing with.
Yet apparently some people can't grasp them. This includes this man:
His name is Rob Parker. He was a sports journalist for The Detroit News, and now works for ESPN, where he appears on a number of different debate shows. On Wednesday afternoon, ESPN aired a segment where Rob Parker argued for several minutes over who should win the AL MVP. He sided with Cabrera. His opponent was another ESPN analyst, Keith Law. Keith Law is one of the most respected baseball writers on the Internet. He provides advanced statistical analysis, evaluates minor league prospects, and unlike Parker, actually worked in baseball, for the Toronto Blue Jays as the Special Assistant to the General Manager. Law sided with Trout in the MVP debate. Some evidence that this actually took place:
After the segment, Rob Parker took to Twitter and made an absolute fool out of himself:
"Watch the damn game"? Keith Law watches 'the damn game' for a living. I'm positive he watches 'the damn game' more than Rob Parker. He watches 'the damn game' so well that ESPN pays him to write columns, hold chats, and host podcasts on a daily basis. Of course, ESPN also pays Rob Parker, so maybe that does rob him of some credibility.
"That's why the A's haven't won jack"? I'm assuming he means that the A's emphasis on statistical analysis is the reason why they haven't 'won jack.' Well...I'm positive that every single team in baseball focuses on statistical analysis. That's how, you know, players are evaluated and teams are run. How else would you do it? Also, Parker chose a terrible time to accuse the A's of not winning jack. Because even though ESPN ranked them as the second-worst team in baseball entering the season, and even though their Opening Day payroll was the second-lowest in baseball, the Oakland Athletics are currently on track to make the postseason. Hey, just for the heck of it:
2012 Wins by the "Can't Win Jack" Oakland Athletics: 87
2012 Wins by the "We've Got the Obvious MVP, Miguel Cabrera" Detroit Tigers: 82.
I'm assuming Rob Parker is also referring to the Moneyball-Era Athletics when he said the team hasn't 'won jack.' Right. Except for the fact that between 1999 and 2006, despite microscopic payrolls, the Athletics finished either first or second in their division every single year. Their lowest win total in those seasons was 87. But don't forget--the A's haven't won jack. All they did was set the AL record for consecutive wins in 2002.
It gets worse.
Maybe Rob Parker doesn't understand how movies work?
On a serious note, the one thing I don't understand most of all is this: why are you automatically a nerdy, statistics-worshiping, pocket-protecting, loveless-guy-with-glasses-and-a-laptop-in-your-mom's-basement if you support Mike Trout for MVP? You don't need obtuse computer-generated stats to argue his case. He's just so obviously the best all-around player in baseball that anything said to the contrary sounds foolish.
In fact, going off that point, I'm utterly confused why old-school guys like Rob Parker aren't falling over themselves to kiss Mike Trout's feet and champion him as the MVP. Because Trout is the exact kind of player that classic sportswriters and journalists love to write hyperbolic pieces about in every major newspaper and on every major website. He's the perfect baseball player. His frame is big enough and strong enough that he can effortlessly hit the ball out of the park the other way, yet he's still fast enough to play a great center field and never get caught stealing. He's always causing havoc on the basepaths, setting things up for teammates, energizing his team. He does "all the little things" that the old school adores: stealing a bag, laying down a bunt, making a diving catch, robbing a home run, outrunning a double play, scoring from second on a single, stretching doubles into triples, playing at 110% intensity at all times. The baseball writers love preaching about how valuable and selfless and throwback-y all that stuff is and how it's massively under-appreciated and how it can never be accurately captured by dumb statistics churned out of computers by basement-dwelling 'stat-nerds' who don't watch the game.
Yet now that the numbers and computers and 'stat-nerds' all support this point of view? That yes, Mike Trout's all-around play is worthy of the Most Valuable Player award? All the Rob Parkers of the world have jumped ship. They've done a complete about-face to champion Miguel Cabrera, who in the past they would have scorned because he can't play defense or run fast or do "all the little things." It's as if the old school is terrified of holding the same point of view as the new school, for fear of turning into glasses-wearing, laptop-using stat-nerds. To heck with the actual right answer.
Why does it matter what Rob Parker says on Twitter? He's probably just being provocative on purpose to generate buzz or something. Why care? I can't really say it better than Brandon McCarthy, who might actually know something about the subject considering he's a real-life pitcher for the can't-win-jack Oakland Athletics and his career was turned around when he embraced advanced statistics:
Want another reason? Rob Parker has a vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame. Keith Law doesn't. If that doesn't tell you something's messed up, nothing will.
Miguel Cabrera has been a slightly better hitter than Mike Trout in 2012. However, hitting is only one of baseball's three dimensions, and Trout has a sizable advantage in the other two (baserunning and defense). Cabrera's small edge in hitting is not enough to overcome Trout's massive edge when it comes to baserunning and defense. The award is not titled 'Most Valuable Hitter,' But 'Most Valuable Player.' Trout is the MVP.
There are a whole bunch of advanced statistics and metrics that can actually prove the above statement numerically, but truthfully those shouldn't be necessary. These are very simple concepts about the nature of baseball that we're dealing with.
Yet apparently some people can't grasp them. This includes this man:
His name is Rob Parker. He was a sports journalist for The Detroit News, and now works for ESPN, where he appears on a number of different debate shows. On Wednesday afternoon, ESPN aired a segment where Rob Parker argued for several minutes over who should win the AL MVP. He sided with Cabrera. His opponent was another ESPN analyst, Keith Law. Keith Law is one of the most respected baseball writers on the Internet. He provides advanced statistical analysis, evaluates minor league prospects, and unlike Parker, actually worked in baseball, for the Toronto Blue Jays as the Special Assistant to the General Manager. Law sided with Trout in the MVP debate. Some evidence that this actually took place:
FYI: I'll be on SportsCenter at 4:15pm today. Imma destroy stat man Keith Law over who should b AL MVP -- Trout or Cabrera. Not even close.
— Rob Parker (@RobParkerESPN) September 26, 2012
After the segment, Rob Parker took to Twitter and made an absolute fool out of himself:
To all the stat-geeks that follow @keithlaw: please put ur calculators down and watch the damn game. That's why the A's haven't won jack."Stat-geeks"? Who are they? People in baseball who value statistics? That's EVERYONE WHO WATCHES BASEBALL. It would be impossible to for baseball--or any sport--to exist without statistics. I'm sure Rob Parker cited Miguel Cabrera's home run total and batting average to support his argument. Those are stats. Heck, the final score of every game is a statistic. The best part about this is the fact that Parker appears most frequently on an ESPN show titled "Numbers Never Lie." Ha. Irony.
— Rob Parker (@RobParkerESPN) September 26, 2012
"Watch the damn game"? Keith Law watches 'the damn game' for a living. I'm positive he watches 'the damn game' more than Rob Parker. He watches 'the damn game' so well that ESPN pays him to write columns, hold chats, and host podcasts on a daily basis. Of course, ESPN also pays Rob Parker, so maybe that does rob him of some credibility.
"That's why the A's haven't won jack"? I'm assuming he means that the A's emphasis on statistical analysis is the reason why they haven't 'won jack.' Well...I'm positive that every single team in baseball focuses on statistical analysis. That's how, you know, players are evaluated and teams are run. How else would you do it? Also, Parker chose a terrible time to accuse the A's of not winning jack. Because even though ESPN ranked them as the second-worst team in baseball entering the season, and even though their Opening Day payroll was the second-lowest in baseball, the Oakland Athletics are currently on track to make the postseason. Hey, just for the heck of it:
2012 Wins by the "Can't Win Jack" Oakland Athletics: 87
2012 Wins by the "We've Got the Obvious MVP, Miguel Cabrera" Detroit Tigers: 82.
I'm assuming Rob Parker is also referring to the Moneyball-Era Athletics when he said the team hasn't 'won jack.' Right. Except for the fact that between 1999 and 2006, despite microscopic payrolls, the Athletics finished either first or second in their division every single year. Their lowest win total in those seasons was 87. But don't forget--the A's haven't won jack. All they did was set the AL record for consecutive wins in 2002.
It gets worse.
I've watched that Billy Beane movie 20 times and the A's never won the World Series. Stats so lame, they couldn't add a Hollywood-ending.
— Rob Parker (@RobParkerESPN) September 26, 2012
Maybe Rob Parker doesn't understand how movies work?
Where's my pocket protector, glasses, laptop and another date-less night? I wanna fit in. LolHaha! Get it? Because only nerds who use newfangled "statistics" have vision problems and use computers! Classic. Classic Rob.
— Rob Parker (@RobParkerESPN) September 26, 2012
On a serious note, the one thing I don't understand most of all is this: why are you automatically a nerdy, statistics-worshiping, pocket-protecting, loveless-guy-with-glasses-and-a-laptop-in-your-mom's-basement if you support Mike Trout for MVP? You don't need obtuse computer-generated stats to argue his case. He's just so obviously the best all-around player in baseball that anything said to the contrary sounds foolish.
In fact, going off that point, I'm utterly confused why old-school guys like Rob Parker aren't falling over themselves to kiss Mike Trout's feet and champion him as the MVP. Because Trout is the exact kind of player that classic sportswriters and journalists love to write hyperbolic pieces about in every major newspaper and on every major website. He's the perfect baseball player. His frame is big enough and strong enough that he can effortlessly hit the ball out of the park the other way, yet he's still fast enough to play a great center field and never get caught stealing. He's always causing havoc on the basepaths, setting things up for teammates, energizing his team. He does "all the little things" that the old school adores: stealing a bag, laying down a bunt, making a diving catch, robbing a home run, outrunning a double play, scoring from second on a single, stretching doubles into triples, playing at 110% intensity at all times. The baseball writers love preaching about how valuable and selfless and throwback-y all that stuff is and how it's massively under-appreciated and how it can never be accurately captured by dumb statistics churned out of computers by basement-dwelling 'stat-nerds' who don't watch the game.
Yet now that the numbers and computers and 'stat-nerds' all support this point of view? That yes, Mike Trout's all-around play is worthy of the Most Valuable Player award? All the Rob Parkers of the world have jumped ship. They've done a complete about-face to champion Miguel Cabrera, who in the past they would have scorned because he can't play defense or run fast or do "all the little things." It's as if the old school is terrified of holding the same point of view as the new school, for fear of turning into glasses-wearing, laptop-using stat-nerds. To heck with the actual right answer.
Why does it matter what Rob Parker says on Twitter? He's probably just being provocative on purpose to generate buzz or something. Why care? I can't really say it better than Brandon McCarthy, who might actually know something about the subject considering he's a real-life pitcher for the can't-win-jack Oakland Athletics and his career was turned around when he embraced advanced statistics:
Those are the words of an 'expert debater'. One who's employed by the biggest sports media company in the country. Embarrassing
— Brandon McCarthy (@BMcCarthy32) September 26, 2012
Want another reason? Rob Parker has a vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame. Keith Law doesn't. If that doesn't tell you something's messed up, nothing will.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
A Note About the AL MVP Race
On Tuesday night, Miguel Cabrera announced his assault on the Triple Crown. His two home runs gave him 40 on the season, which trails Josh Hamilton by two. His six RBIs give him a commanding lead in that category, 129 to 123 over Hamilton. Cabrera also leads the AL batting race with a .333 average, six points better than Mike Trout's .327.
So if Cabrera out-homers Josh Hamilton over the next two weeks, while maintaining his lead in the RBI and batting average departments, he will win the first Triple Crown since Carl Yastrzemski did it in 1967. If this happens, it seems as though Cabrera will be a mortal lock to win the MVP over Mike Trout. That's how historic this achievement would be.
However, there's another statistical achievement in play that should be considered. BaseballReference.com tracks the history of single-season Wins Above Replacement figures. WAR, unlike the Triple Crown, is an all-encompassing statistic that does its best to quantify a player's all-around value--offense, defense, baserunning--in one simple number. This stands in direct contrast to the Triple Crown, which, despite its aura, only measures home runs, runs batted in, and batting average.
In the history of baseball, only 19 players have ever accumulated 10 WAR in a season. It's the holy grail of the statistic. If you're interested, those players are:
Babe Ruth
Rogers Hornsby
Carl Yastrzemski
Barry Bonds
Lou Gehrig
Cal Ripken Jr.
Honus Wagner
Ty Cobb
Mickey Mantle
Willie Mays
Joe Morgan
Stan Musial
Ted Williams
Robin Yount
Lou Boudreau
Jimmie Foxx
Eddie Collins
Alex Rodriguez
Sammy Sosa
That's 16 Hall of Famers, plus three more (Bonds, Rodriguez, Sosa) who may one day get there.
This year, a 20th player joined this exclusive group. He currently sits at 10.3 WAR and the season isn't even over yet. The player isn't Cabrera. It's Mike Trout.
Cabrera could win the Triple Crown by a landslide and it still wouldn't matter. Not only has Trout has been the most valuable player in baseball this year; he's achieved a season of dominance that only 19 Hall of Fame-caliber players have ever achieved before. And he's done it in only 125 games so far, thanks to missing the first month of the season through no fault of his own.
Trout is the MVP. Any other result would be a joke.
So if Cabrera out-homers Josh Hamilton over the next two weeks, while maintaining his lead in the RBI and batting average departments, he will win the first Triple Crown since Carl Yastrzemski did it in 1967. If this happens, it seems as though Cabrera will be a mortal lock to win the MVP over Mike Trout. That's how historic this achievement would be.
However, there's another statistical achievement in play that should be considered. BaseballReference.com tracks the history of single-season Wins Above Replacement figures. WAR, unlike the Triple Crown, is an all-encompassing statistic that does its best to quantify a player's all-around value--offense, defense, baserunning--in one simple number. This stands in direct contrast to the Triple Crown, which, despite its aura, only measures home runs, runs batted in, and batting average.
In the history of baseball, only 19 players have ever accumulated 10 WAR in a season. It's the holy grail of the statistic. If you're interested, those players are:
Babe Ruth
Rogers Hornsby
Carl Yastrzemski
Barry Bonds
Lou Gehrig
Cal Ripken Jr.
Honus Wagner
Ty Cobb
Mickey Mantle
Willie Mays
Joe Morgan
Stan Musial
Ted Williams
Robin Yount
Lou Boudreau
Jimmie Foxx
Eddie Collins
Alex Rodriguez
Sammy Sosa
That's 16 Hall of Famers, plus three more (Bonds, Rodriguez, Sosa) who may one day get there.
This year, a 20th player joined this exclusive group. He currently sits at 10.3 WAR and the season isn't even over yet. The player isn't Cabrera. It's Mike Trout.
Cabrera could win the Triple Crown by a landslide and it still wouldn't matter. Not only has Trout has been the most valuable player in baseball this year; he's achieved a season of dominance that only 19 Hall of Fame-caliber players have ever achieved before. And he's done it in only 125 games so far, thanks to missing the first month of the season through no fault of his own.
Trout is the MVP. Any other result would be a joke.
Monday, September 17, 2012
This Man Is Paid To Write About Baseball
Jon Heyman of CBS Sports unleashed this bizarre message unto the Twitter universe on Monday night, unaltered so that its capitalization-fail remains intact:
"matt wieters should be on mvp ballots somewhere. best player in game w/ .765 OPS."
Here's some physical evidence that this actually happened, in case you were skeptical:
I have no quarrel with Wieters appearing on an MVP ballot, especially since those things can run 20 players deep depending on the year. What's truly baffling is the second statement, or the justification for the first statement:
Matt Wieters is the best player in the game with a .765 OPS.
Here's the thing: technically, this is true. Because entering play Monday, Matt Wieters was the only player in baseball with an OPS at exactly .765. So by default, yes, this is technically a fact.
But it doesn't matter. It's a ludicrous thing to say. Utterly nonsensical. I suppose Alexei Ramirez is the best player in baseball with a .671 OPS, but only because his only competition at that statistical benchmark is the esteemed Michael Young. Did you know that Justin Smoak is the best player in baseball with a .601 OPS? He's the only one, too! He should be on MVP ballots somewhere!
I guess what Heyman was trying to say is that, for a player with a .765 OPS (which is okay, nothing to write home about, with the league average for catchers at just above .700), Wieters is very good. Especially compared to players who have an OPS in the same neighborhood as Wieters, like Justin Upton (.764) or Neil Walker (.766). Of course, this stems from the fact that Wieters is a catcher, and that he plays great defense. If one was to make a real-life, non-Heymanian argument supporting some MVP votes for Wieters, one would have to cite defensive value as the best supporting evidence. Not some bizarre justification based on a random OPS number that isn't even terribly impressive in the first place.
Hopefully, Jon Heyman is just messing with us. Please.
"matt wieters should be on mvp ballots somewhere. best player in game w/ .765 OPS."
Here's some physical evidence that this actually happened, in case you were skeptical:
matt wieters should be on mvp ballots somewhere. best player in game w/ .765 OPS.
— Jon Heyman (@JonHeymanCBS) September 18, 2012
I have no quarrel with Wieters appearing on an MVP ballot, especially since those things can run 20 players deep depending on the year. What's truly baffling is the second statement, or the justification for the first statement:
Matt Wieters is the best player in the game with a .765 OPS.
Here's the thing: technically, this is true. Because entering play Monday, Matt Wieters was the only player in baseball with an OPS at exactly .765. So by default, yes, this is technically a fact.
But it doesn't matter. It's a ludicrous thing to say. Utterly nonsensical. I suppose Alexei Ramirez is the best player in baseball with a .671 OPS, but only because his only competition at that statistical benchmark is the esteemed Michael Young. Did you know that Justin Smoak is the best player in baseball with a .601 OPS? He's the only one, too! He should be on MVP ballots somewhere!
I guess what Heyman was trying to say is that, for a player with a .765 OPS (which is okay, nothing to write home about, with the league average for catchers at just above .700), Wieters is very good. Especially compared to players who have an OPS in the same neighborhood as Wieters, like Justin Upton (.764) or Neil Walker (.766). Of course, this stems from the fact that Wieters is a catcher, and that he plays great defense. If one was to make a real-life, non-Heymanian argument supporting some MVP votes for Wieters, one would have to cite defensive value as the best supporting evidence. Not some bizarre justification based on a random OPS number that isn't even terribly impressive in the first place.
Hopefully, Jon Heyman is just messing with us. Please.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
The Worst Things Anyone Has Ever Said
Two men named Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser host a show on ESPN called "Pardon the Interruption." They claim to offer insight on events in the sporting world. They are either lying or have been grossly misled by their closest peers.
In one segment of Tuesday's show, the two were asked to "grade" (whatever that means) Felix Hernandez's "Cy Young Chances" after he threw a complete game shutout in his most recent start.
Tony Kornheiser: "Last night he threw his third one-nothing game of August! There's only two other guys in the history of baseball who've done that!"
This is correct. This is how all people should speak when they speak of Felix: with incredulous awe. Sadly, this does not last long.
Kornheiser: "Look, Felix is 13-5. That's far better [than] when he won the Cy Young at a joke of 13 and 12--"
Kornheiser referring, at the end there, to Felix's record (13-12) when he won the award in 2010. Michael Wilbon then interrupts:
Wilbon: "He shouldn't have won the award."
Again, referring to 2010. Never mind the fact that Felix led the AL in innings (249.2) with the lowest ERA in baseball (2.27) on a godawful baseball team. How dare the best pitcher in the league win the award for Best Pitcher in the League! What a travesty that was!
These guys think that Felix didn't deserve to win the Cy Young award because he only won 13 games and lost 12. This is stunningly backwards thinking. Like, 'Galileo-should-recant-because-the-Sun-revolves-around-Earth' backwards. Felix's team scored the fewest runs in baseball that year. It wasn't even close. It's hard for pitchers to accumulate "wins" when your team OPS is .637, almost a full 100 points worse than league average that year. Felix "lost" 12 games, yet gave up three earned runs or fewer in eight of those. And nine other times he was eligible for a win and surrendered three earned runs or fewer, but got a no-decision. These were all very winnable games for a better offense. Not for the 2010 Mariners. Penalizing Felix for failing to inspire (cheerlead?) his teammates to score more runs for him is ridiculous.
Kornheiser: "But Jered Weaver is 16 and 3, David Price 16 and 5, Chris Sale 15 and 4. King Felix right now no better than a B."
Wilbon: "No better than a B is right, Tony. Now, also I think the people who voted for him when he got 13 and 12--"
Kornheiser: "--UGH--"
Wilbon: "--they probably figured they've done enough. They handed him one, he's going to earn this one more than that one..."
Love the implication that the voters 'gifted' Felix with that Cy Young, as if he didn't earn it WITH THE LOWEST ERA AND THE MOST INNINGS PITCHED IN HIS LEAGUE FOR A MISERABLE 101-LOSS TEAM.
Funny side note: Wilbon also implies that Felix is earning this Cy Young more than the 2010 one, simply because he's 13-5 this year compared to 13-12 two years ago. He's got a better record, so he must be pitching better, right?
Felix, 2010: 2.27 ERA, 8.4 K/9, 2.5 BB/9, 7.0 hits/9, 13-12 record
Felix, 2012: 2.43 ERA, 8.4 K/9, 2.1 BB/9, 7.1 hits/9, 13-5 record
Nope. He's basically the exact same pitcher. He was actually maybe a bit better in 2010. The difference in wins/losses is because of a slightly improved offense, a better bullpen, and pure luck.
Turns out, like....wins and losses aren't everything.
Wilbon: "...I'm going to give him a B-plus, but you mentioned those guys, Tony, 16 and 3 for Weaver even though he got lit up in one of his last two starts, Chris Sale had a great outing against the Yankees so he's 15 and 4, Price has been good 'til last night. All those guys--it's a dead heat. B-plus though."
This is fantastic. To recap, here are Michael Wilbon's Four Important Criteria for Cy Young Consideration:
1. How Many Wins And Losses You Have (A.K.A How Good Your Team's Offense Is)
2. Whether Or Not You Got Lit Up In One Of Your Last Two Starts
3. How Your Last Outing Against The Yankees Went ("Great", "Not-So-Great", "Crappy", etc.)
4. How You Pitched Last Night
Back in reality, Felix leads the AL (and baseball) in ERA. He has thrown the most innings. He's third in strikeouts. He's second in Wins Above Replacement among all pitchers. The fact that Weaver, Sale, and Price have more wins than him means less than nothing.
Finally, third contributor Tony Reali chipped in with an editorial comment:
Tony Reali, Blessed Voice of Reason: "...You guys realize there are other stats than wins and losses, right?"
Wilbon: [facetiously, I pray] "No, there aren't...Win the game!"
This is so mind-numbingly stupid that I simply can't write about it any more for fear of falling to a spontaneous coma. We're done here.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
I Know You Just Wrote This to Stir Controversy, But...
Relievers can't win the Cy Young Award.
I mean, they can, theoretically. If they put up a truly unprecedented, historic, dominant season, while simultaneously no starting pitcher has a particularly good year. That's never really happened. The voters have deemed a reliever worthy of the Cy Young Award nine times, and each time you can find starters who were far more worthy of the reward.
Why is this? Starting pitchers are always more valuable based on the number of innings they throw and how difficult they are to replace. It's relatively easy to find a pitcher who throw as hard as they can one inning a time without the need to worry about pitch counts or facing batters multiple times.
So, naturally, someone named Gregg Doyel of CBS Sports.com thinks that the two front-runners for the 2012 NL Cy Young Award are both relievers. And, according to him, it's not even close. He writes:
R.A. Dickey is having a Cy Young sort of season. So is Johnny Cueto. Maybe a few other starting pitchers in the National League, too, but especially Dickey and Cueto. They're on pace to win 20 games, lose fewer than half of those and finish among league leaders in ERA and strikeouts -- which is to say, they're having seasons typical of a Cy Young winner.
But Aroldis Chapman and Craig Kimbrel are having seasons that have never been done before.
So let's give the Cy Young to one of them.
Terrible, miserable logic. Hey, check this out: Aaron Cook of the Boston Red Sox is succeeding in the major leagues despite, quite literally, not striking anyone out, which has pretty much never been done before. Does he deserve the Cy Young? Simply because he's having a season that has "never been done before"? Of course not. This is stupid. Justin Verlander might win the AL Cy Young by doing the exact same thing he did last year. This does not detract from his candidacy.
Problem is, Chapman and Kimbrel are relievers, and relievers aren't supposed to win this thing.
Correct!
A closer will win it from time to time, but usually he has to have some bitchin' facial hair or 50-plus saves or just do like Sparky Lyle did in 1977 and pitch for the Yankees.
Well, that's one problem with my position. There are several, all of which can be explained away, but only in the hands of an expert. Which is where I come in. But first, I'll take your top three complaints.
1. It's too early to be talking about the Cy Young!
In a vacuum, yes -- if this were a typical season for the NL Cy Young, meaning it would go to the best starting pitcher, it would be way too early. (...)
They can, and they are. Again, they're historically good, both of them, which is weird because it's happening in the same season. (...)
This isn't the question. Of course they're THAT good. The question is whether they're good ENOUGH to overcome the very large natural gap that exists between starters and relievers. (Spoiler alert: they're not).
3. They don't work as many innings as starters.
No kidding. That's an argument-ender for lots of people, and on the surface, it makes sense. Dickey, Cueto, Cain, Kershaw -- lots of starters having great seasons are on pace to throw 200-plus innings, potentially tripling Chapman or Kimbrel.
But...you completely ignored that whole innings thing. You tried to distract me with those shiny ERAs. Nice try.
Because of the whole innings thing, ten NL starters have been as valuable or more valuable than Aroldis Chapman based on Wins Above Replacement. 21 have been at least as valuable as Craig Kimbrel. As Doyel pointed out, Chapman and Kimbrel's innings totals will be tripled by other top starting pitchers, like Johnny Cueto.
Chapman's ERA in 48 1/3 innings against National League opposition is zero point one-nine. Again, that's Little League stuff. (...)
He's pitching one inning at a time. You can't compare this to a starting pitcher's ERA. They are completely different things.
Actually, here's a good test. Both Johnny Cueto and Aroldis Chapman pitch for the first-place Cincinnati Reds. Chapman has a 1.34 ERA. Cueto has a 2.58 ERA. One would assume that Chapman > Cueto. Now: take Chapman off the Reds, and they'd lose a few more games, but they'd be fine. Take Cueto and his 100 additional innings off the Reds? They probably wouldn't be in first place. One of these players is far more difficult to replace than the other. Extrapolate from there.
Anyone else? There isn't anyone else.
It's a complete fallacy to put relief pitchers in consideration for the same award as starting pitchers for reasons that go even beyond the innings gap. It's like comparing apples and oranges, or like giving the MVP award to a specialized bench player over an everyday player. For one, relievers are inherently replaceable (just look at Fernando Rodney, a scrap-heap pick-up converted into shutdown closer). Top aces, on the other hand, are the rarest, most-sought-after commodity in the game. Furthermore, Chapman and Kimbrel don't need to worry about fatigue or pitch counts or facing hitters multiple times. They get to throw as hard as they possibly can for one inning at a time. Who's to say that Stephen Strasburg or Clayton Kershaw couldn't do what Chapman and Kimbrel do? Quite frankly, it's easier. But most importantly of all:
Relief pitchers are almost always failed starting pitchers.
Again, because it's that important:
Relief pitchers are almost always failed starting pitchers.
That makes the reliever inherently inferior to the starter. If Aroldis Chapman and Craig Kimbrel were good enough to start, they would, because of how exponentially more valuable that role is compared to a bullpen arm. But they can't start. They can't do what Johnny Cueto and Matt Cain and R.A. Dickey and Cole Hamels do so well, for a variety of reasons. Chapman relies on superhuman velocity to beat hitters, which wouldn't hold up over a six-inning start. Plus, he would walk too many guys to be effective. Kimbrel can't start because he doesn't have the stamina, and his mechanics are far too wacky to survive the wear-and-tear of 200 innings. And neither Chapman nor Kimbrel has the third or fourth pitch that a starting pitcher needs.
Appreciate Chapman and Kimbrel for what they are, and acknowledge their brilliance within its proper context. But rewarding either of them--or any relief pitcher--with a Cy Young would represent a gross misunderstanding of how pitching works.
I mean, they can, theoretically. If they put up a truly unprecedented, historic, dominant season, while simultaneously no starting pitcher has a particularly good year. That's never really happened. The voters have deemed a reliever worthy of the Cy Young Award nine times, and each time you can find starters who were far more worthy of the reward.
Why is this? Starting pitchers are always more valuable based on the number of innings they throw and how difficult they are to replace. It's relatively easy to find a pitcher who throw as hard as they can one inning a time without the need to worry about pitch counts or facing batters multiple times.
So, naturally, someone named Gregg Doyel of CBS Sports.com thinks that the two front-runners for the 2012 NL Cy Young Award are both relievers. And, according to him, it's not even close. He writes:
R.A. Dickey is having a Cy Young sort of season. So is Johnny Cueto. Maybe a few other starting pitchers in the National League, too, but especially Dickey and Cueto. They're on pace to win 20 games, lose fewer than half of those and finish among league leaders in ERA and strikeouts -- which is to say, they're having seasons typical of a Cy Young winner.
But Aroldis Chapman and Craig Kimbrel are having seasons that have never been done before.
So let's give the Cy Young to one of them.
Terrible, miserable logic. Hey, check this out: Aaron Cook of the Boston Red Sox is succeeding in the major leagues despite, quite literally, not striking anyone out, which has pretty much never been done before. Does he deserve the Cy Young? Simply because he's having a season that has "never been done before"? Of course not. This is stupid. Justin Verlander might win the AL Cy Young by doing the exact same thing he did last year. This does not detract from his candidacy.
Problem is, Chapman and Kimbrel are relievers, and relievers aren't supposed to win this thing.
Correct!
A closer will win it from time to time, but usually he has to have some bitchin' facial hair or 50-plus saves or just do like Sparky Lyle did in 1977 and pitch for the Yankees.
Well, that's one problem with my position. There are several, all of which can be explained away, but only in the hands of an expert. Which is where I come in. But first, I'll take your top three complaints.
1. It's too early to be talking about the Cy Young!
In a vacuum, yes -- if this were a typical season for the NL Cy Young, meaning it would go to the best starting pitcher, it would be way too early. (...)
But this isn't a typical season, because Chapman and Kimbrel aren't typical candidates. They're not even typical closer candidates. Chapman has 25 saves, which is nice but isn't going to lead the league -- and Kimbrel might not lead the league either, seeing how he's one behind Joel Hanrahan's league-leading 32. How do you give the Cy Young to a closer who doesn't lead the league in saves (or have bitchin' facial hair or pitch for the Yankees)?
You don't. And if the season ended today, voters wouldn't.
The ONLY thing in the universe worse than giving the Cy Young to a reliever is giving the Cy Young to a reliever based on the most arbitrary, dreamed-up statistic ever engineered: the save.
Without telling them why, I asked four baseball writers at CBSSports.com and one at Yahoo Sports for their top-three Cy Young ballot if the season ended today. None of them named Chapman or Kimbrel.
You should've taken the hint, dude.
So I'm here to get the word out, start a conversation about the NL Cy Young, because the right thing must be done. And the right thing is for Chapman and Kimbrel to be sitting in the lead at this moment.
2. Chapman and Kimbrel can't be THAT good.
You don't. And if the season ended today, voters wouldn't.
The ONLY thing in the universe worse than giving the Cy Young to a reliever is giving the Cy Young to a reliever based on the most arbitrary, dreamed-up statistic ever engineered: the save.
Without telling them why, I asked four baseball writers at CBSSports.com and one at Yahoo Sports for their top-three Cy Young ballot if the season ended today. None of them named Chapman or Kimbrel.
You should've taken the hint, dude.
So I'm here to get the word out, start a conversation about the NL Cy Young, because the right thing must be done. And the right thing is for Chapman and Kimbrel to be sitting in the lead at this moment.
2. Chapman and Kimbrel can't be THAT good.
They can, and they are. Again, they're historically good, both of them, which is weird because it's happening in the same season. (...)
This isn't the question. Of course they're THAT good. The question is whether they're good ENOUGH to overcome the very large natural gap that exists between starters and relievers. (Spoiler alert: they're not).
3. They don't work as many innings as starters.
No kidding. That's an argument-ender for lots of people, and on the surface, it makes sense. Dickey, Cueto, Cain, Kershaw -- lots of starters having great seasons are on pace to throw 200-plus innings, potentially tripling Chapman or Kimbrel.
But below the surface of that number are other numbers. Kimbrel's ERA is 1.29. Chapman's is slightly behind that at 1.34, but against National League foes, his ERA is 0.19.
Because of the whole innings thing, ten NL starters have been as valuable or more valuable than Aroldis Chapman based on Wins Above Replacement. 21 have been at least as valuable as Craig Kimbrel. As Doyel pointed out, Chapman and Kimbrel's innings totals will be tripled by other top starting pitchers, like Johnny Cueto.
Chapman's ERA in 48 1/3 innings against National League opposition is zero point one-nine. Again, that's Little League stuff. (...)
He's pitching one inning at a time. You can't compare this to a starting pitcher's ERA. They are completely different things.
Actually, here's a good test. Both Johnny Cueto and Aroldis Chapman pitch for the first-place Cincinnati Reds. Chapman has a 1.34 ERA. Cueto has a 2.58 ERA. One would assume that Chapman > Cueto. Now: take Chapman off the Reds, and they'd lose a few more games, but they'd be fine. Take Cueto and his 100 additional innings off the Reds? They probably wouldn't be in first place. One of these players is far more difficult to replace than the other. Extrapolate from there.
You can see who would get my vote Cy Young, if the season ended today: Aroldis Chapman. But I would settle for Craig Kimbrel.
Anyone else? There isn't anyone else.
It's a complete fallacy to put relief pitchers in consideration for the same award as starting pitchers for reasons that go even beyond the innings gap. It's like comparing apples and oranges, or like giving the MVP award to a specialized bench player over an everyday player. For one, relievers are inherently replaceable (just look at Fernando Rodney, a scrap-heap pick-up converted into shutdown closer). Top aces, on the other hand, are the rarest, most-sought-after commodity in the game. Furthermore, Chapman and Kimbrel don't need to worry about fatigue or pitch counts or facing hitters multiple times. They get to throw as hard as they possibly can for one inning at a time. Who's to say that Stephen Strasburg or Clayton Kershaw couldn't do what Chapman and Kimbrel do? Quite frankly, it's easier. But most importantly of all:
Relief pitchers are almost always failed starting pitchers.
Again, because it's that important:
Relief pitchers are almost always failed starting pitchers.
That makes the reliever inherently inferior to the starter. If Aroldis Chapman and Craig Kimbrel were good enough to start, they would, because of how exponentially more valuable that role is compared to a bullpen arm. But they can't start. They can't do what Johnny Cueto and Matt Cain and R.A. Dickey and Cole Hamels do so well, for a variety of reasons. Chapman relies on superhuman velocity to beat hitters, which wouldn't hold up over a six-inning start. Plus, he would walk too many guys to be effective. Kimbrel can't start because he doesn't have the stamina, and his mechanics are far too wacky to survive the wear-and-tear of 200 innings. And neither Chapman nor Kimbrel has the third or fourth pitch that a starting pitcher needs.
Appreciate Chapman and Kimbrel for what they are, and acknowledge their brilliance within its proper context. But rewarding either of them--or any relief pitcher--with a Cy Young would represent a gross misunderstanding of how pitching works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)