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. (...)

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's a Clown Article, Bro

Some might consider it noteworthy that Bryce Harper did not crack the National League's All-Star roster. Gregg Doyel of CBS Sports is one of those people. He argues that Harper should be in the All-Star Game despite being wholly unqualified:

"Some of you will call this a clown question, but here it comes:

How can the 2012 All-Star Game not include Bryce Harper?"

Bryce Harper ranks 16th among NL outfielders in OPS. He is tied for 24th in Wins Above Replacement among the same group. The better question would be: how can the 2012 All-Star Game include Bryce Harper?

"That's my question, bro, and apparently I care about it more than Harper himself, who didn't make the National League roster in the fan vote, the player vote or the managerial vote -- but who is one of five players for the last NL roster spot, alongside Chipper Jones, Michael Bourn, Aaron Hill and David Freese. Upon learning Sunday he was among the five finalists for that Internet vote, Harper said, 'I'd vote for Chipper.'"

So, based on those two sentences, here's a list of people who think Bryce Harper should not be an All-Star:

1. Baseball managers
2. Baseball players
3. Baseball fans
4. Bryce Harper
5. Basically everyone except Gregg Doyel

"So this is the loneliest of battles I'm waging, wanting an All-Star spot for a guy who doesn't seem to want the All-Star spot himself. But I'll wage it nonetheless, even if most of you hate the idea. Which makes no sense to me, by the way.

The All-Star Game is for you."

Me?

"You. It's not for the players, not for the managers, and while the All-Star game is for home-field advantage in the World Series, it's not for that, either. That's not why this game is scheduled. This game is scheduled for you. And for me. It's for people like us -- who want to watch some combination of the best, most popular and most entertaining baseball players in the world."

See, that's wrong. The All-Star game is for the best players. Anything else compromises the vital competition for home-field advantage in the World Series; There are dozens of players who are "popular," or "entertaining," but don't belong within 100 miles of an All-Star roster (Carlos Zambrano, anyone? Jose Valverde? Tim Lincecum? Ichiro Suzuki? etc etc).

"And I want to watch Bryce Harper.

He might or might not be one of the 34 best players in the National League, but he has to be one of the most popular, and one of the most entertaining."

Can I suggest some edits? This should read: He might or might not be hasn't been one of the 34 best players in the National League, but he has to be one of the most popular, and one of the most entertaining, which helps his chances of winning American Idol or a Miss America contest but has no actual bearing on his worthiness (or lack thereof) for an All-Star roster spot.

Fixed.

"Has to be. Listen, when it comes to something like this, popularity isn't a, um, popularity contest. It's about name recognition, fame, buzz. Lots of us tune into the All-Star Game to see something interesting, something fun."

Because, I assume, seeing the best players in baseball compete against each other for nine innings isn't "interesting" or "fun."

"David Freese? He's not interesting. Sorry, but he's not. He's very good, and he's very nice, but he's not very fun."

If you're going to pick an MLB player to serve as your "boring" strawman...why would you pick the guy who had two of the most dramatic World Series hits in history last October??? David Freese is anything but boring. Weird.

"Same goes for Aaron Hill. Michael Bourn? Interesting player there. Chipper Jones? Hall of Famer. So there are two decent names for fans to pick, assuming they don't pick Bryce Harper.
But why would they not pick Bryce Harper?"

Michael Bourn, CF: 3.9 WAR, 22 steals
Aaron Hill, 2B: 2.8 WAR, .872 OPS
Chipper Jones, 3B: Future Hall of Famer
Bryce Harper, RF: 1.4 WAR, .819 OPS

That's why.

"I know, there are reasons: He's not deserving, which I'd debate."

Andre Ethier. Matt Holliday. Jason Kubel. Michael Bourn. Martin Prado. Jason Heyward. Dexter Fowler. Hunter Pence. All are more deserving than Harper, and that's impossible to debate. Most any other argument is irrelevant.

"He'll have plenty of chances in the future, which I'd suggest is impossible to predict. He's not to be trusted with home field of the World Series on the line, which I'd reject outright. There are 68 players in the All-Star Game, so there's a 1.47 percent chance of Harper being the deciding factor."

That might be the lamest attempt at statistical probability I have ever seen.

"...Harper is the real deal, but again, he's more than that. He's fun. He's exciting. Other than Angels phenom Mike Trout, Harper is the guy I most want to see next Tuesday night.
And isn't that the point of the All-Star Game? To get people like me -- a voracious baseball reader, but only a casual watcher -- to turn on the television?"

That might be the most frustrating part of this article. The All-Star Game is a showcase of the best hitters and pitchers in baseball...but you won't find it compelling or exciting or even watchable unless Bryce Harper is there? Really? Josh Hamilton doesn't do it for you? Ryan Braun doesn't quite make your cut? Aroldis Chapman doesn't throw hard enough? Melky Cabrera not "fun" enough? Robinson Cano not "exciting" enough? R.A. Dickey not "popular" enough? What about David Price? Andrew McCutchen? Miguel Cabrera? Giancarlo Stanton? Clayton Kershaw? If that lineup of All-Stars doesn't do anything for you, then I'm sorry, but you really aren't a baseball fan, sir.

"Hate to break it to you, Mr. or Ms. Hardcore Baseball Fan, but baseball isn't hoping to lure you to the TV set. See, baseball knows you're going to watch. You play fantasy baseball, you have the baseball package on your home TV, you do a damn good impersonation of Tim Kurkjian, and you watch the All-Star Game. That's a given.

Baseball doesn't put on this midseason spectacle to lure you. It puts it on to lure me, and people like me, and as a hardcore baseball fan you should encourage that. You love your sport, right? You want it to grow, right? Then give people like me what we want."

Joey Votto? David Ortiz? Buster Posey? Joe Mauer? Mark Trumbo? Craig Kimbrel? Nothing???

"Give me Bryce Harper."

Matt Cain? Carlos Gonzalez? Prince Fielder? Jose Altuve? Stephen Strasburg???

"Or give me the remote control."

No, you can go watch NFL highlights in the other room. I'll be watching the All-Star Game.

Kick Him While He's Down

CBS Sports columnist and noted jerkface Gregg Doyel has some choice words for Missouri head coach Frank Haith, whose team was just shocked in the first round by 15-seed Norfolk State, 86-84.

OMAHA, Neb. -- Frank Haith did not distinguish himself on Friday, not during the game when Mike Anderson's his 30-win Missouri Tigers became just the fifth No. 2 seed to lose a No. 15 -- and not afterward when he basically said Norfolk State was lucky to win.

Clever! I see what you did there! You wrote 'Mike Anderson,' then crossed it out, as if to say that Anderson, former Mizzou head coach, is more responsible for the Tigers' 30-win season than Haith. Classic. Classic Doyel.

Because after all, Anderson recruited all those current players that Haith stole coached. And that's all that matters when it comes to coaching. Recruitment. It's not like Haith had to do much of anything during those 30 wins, except stand on the sidelines and pretend like he gives a crap call the occasional timeout. He probably doesn't even like his players, or his job. I bet he's a Commie.

Look, these are his words. Not mine. I'm just now finding them after the craziness that was four games in eight hours in Omaha on Friday, but I found his words. Wasn't hard, seeing how he said them over ... and over ... and over ...

In his brief introductory statement to the media, Haith devoted half of his remarks to Norfolk State's fluke points:

"They had two [baskets] on air balls on weak-side rebounds, and they banked a couple of 3's in," Haith pointed out.

Great. Awesome. No, these comments aren't ideal. But, Gregg Doyel, you left off the second half of that sentence. The full quote was: "They had two points on air balls on weak-side rebounds, and they banked a couple of 3's in, but they were better than us going after loose balls and rebounding the basketball which ended up doing us in."

Seems like that last part is kind of important to the integrity of the comment. Leaving off half of a quoted sentence to make your dumb argument seem stronger = bad journalism.

Thanks, Frank. This loss was a fluke. Got it. Not that he was finished.

After Missouri's players spoke to the media, it was back to the coach. Back to the excuses. On the first question to Haith, a question about Missouri's field-goal shooting occasionally being subpar, Haith somehow used that question about his team's offense to talk about Norfolk State's fluke luck on offense. First he discussed NSU star Kyle O'Quinn, then he noted that "there were two air-ball rebounds where they got six points off of." Haith concluded by stating, "So loose balls, air-ball rebounds ..."

Oh my god. We get it. Frank Haith was a little bitter after he watched his entire season go down the drain in the first round against a team no one's ever heard of with a "15" next to its name. We can't possibly cut him some slack?

A few questions later, Haith was asked about the state of basketball, the fact that a 15-seed can beat a two, that college kids are just, after all, college kids. And Haith talked briefly about the tournament, and neutral courts, then went back to his favorite point -- that this loss wasn't his fault. It was a fluke:

"As long as they stay in the game, the momentum, then you bank a couple of 3's, which they did, it becomes a ballgame," Haith said.

Got it, Frank. This loss, not your fault.

Those 30 wins, though -- your brilliance, right?

Given the caustic tone of Doyel's words, it's pretty safe to assume that he just hates Frank Haith for whatever reason. In fact, when Haith was first hired, he called the move "bizarre," saying it "makes no sense, on any level." So I'm guessing this attack on Haith's questionable postgame comments was fueled in part by a personal grudge. And now I find myself defending Frank Haith, which is ironic because I don't even like Haith that much either.

But hey, how's about we look at the facts.

When Frank Haith was hired less than a year ago, the move was almost universally panned. Even Mizzou fans thought it was a bad hire. The fact that Haith wasn't the university's first choice was very public, too, as they didn't turn to him until their hot pursuit of Matt Painter failed. I'm sure all of this affected Haith.

Then he shows up to coach a team of almost-exclusively upper-classmen, none of whom he recruited or even knew. The group had some chemistry issues down the stretch the previous year, which resulted in a lackluster showing in the first round of the NCAA tournament and their former coach leaving for Arkansas. Unsurprisingly, Missouri wasn't picked to finish in the top three in the conference.

Then the team's best player, Laurence Bowers, tears his ACL. He's out for the season. Missouri is left with a drastically undersized lineup--only one player is listed as 6-foot-9 or taller. Frank Haith is coaching a team with seven scholarship players and a four-guard lineup that features shooting guard Kim English at the power-forward position. No one think Missouri can possibly match up with the conference's formidable big men--Thomas Robinson, Perry Jones III, etc.

Then guess what happens? Missouri wins its first 14 games, finishing the nonconference schedule undefeated. The team with a questioned coach and uncertain chemistry becomes the ultimate example of how formidable a team becomes with unparalled effort and unselfish play. The Tigers travel to Baylor, ranked #3 in the country, and outplay the Bears' enormous front line despite inferior size to win 89-88. They rally from eight down with 3 minutes remaining to beat rival Kansas at home. Ricardo Ratliffe has one of the most efficient seasons in college basketball history. Marcus Denmon becomes one of the country's most feared closers. Frank Haith is named the AP Big 12 Coach of the Year. Skeptics turn into believers. They stop asking, "How will Missouri match up against Team X?" and start asking, "How can Team X possibly match up against Missouri?"

Then Missouri beats Baylor for the third time to win the program's conference tournament championship in over 60 years. The Tigers finish with 30 wins, the #3 national ranking, and a #2 seed in the NCAA tournament. All of this happens under the cloud of knowledge that 2012 is Mizzou's last year in the Big 12.

So entering the tournament, Frank Haith is facing the prospects of ultimate redemption. After being mocked for months, he has led Missouri to one of its best seasons ever despite incredible adversity. He can give the Tigers their first-ever Final Four appearance in his first year at the program. Seniors Marcus Denmon, Kim English, Ricardo Ratliffe, and Matt Pressey can leave the program they've transformed knowing they've taken their school to heights it has never before reached.

Then Norfolk State happens, and it all goes up in smoke.

The Tigers shot 52% from the field, made 10 3-pointers, and committed only 8 turnovers, but still lost to the fifteenth-seeded Norfolk State Spartans 86-84. No tournament team has ever suffered that kind of loss. 20 points each from Phil Pressey, Marcus Denmon, and Michael Dixon wasn't enough to beat someone named Kyle O'Quinn, who scored 26 points with 14 rebounds. Suddenly, after one stunning game, Frank Haith goes from the top of the basketball world to an embarrassingly early tournament exit. Despite his dream-like season, despite being named the National Coach of the Year by the U.S. Basketball Writers Assocation, he'll likely spend the next few months answering questions about the uncertain future of Missouri basketball and alleged violations at Miami. Once again he'll hear those whispers--or in Gregg Doyel's case, screams--about whether or not he was the right man for the job in the first place, after all he's done.

So maybe--just maybe--it's understandable that Frank Haith was a little bitter during that postgame press conference. You'd think months of outstanding coaching would give the guy the benefit of the doubt. You'd think his season would be defined by the adversity he overcame and the accomplishments his team earned rather than a few sentences that came out of his mouth after a gut-wrenching loss. You'd think that Haith, rather than the guy who went 18-14 for the Arkansas Razorbacks this season, would get the bulk of the credit for Missouri's success. But not according to Gregg Doyel. And that's a shame.