2016 MLB awards thread

At least I got you off the lazy posting. And yes, I did manipulate you with that one. Sadly, all you did was go right back to the crutch of attacking the poster when you can't win the argument.

I'm sorry you can't handle losing better than this, but your argument is hypocritical. If baseball stacks the deck on the field, you're fine with it, but heaven forbid they do something unfair in MVP voting? Typical baseball apologist logic.

Team success is part of MVP voting. Not all of it, but it does count and it should count. The Angels sucked with Trout and they could have sucked without him. Betts helped the Red Sox make the playoffs. You can argue how much help he was for the, but he contributed to a successful team while Trout did not.

 

Hope the presidential debate tonightis more entertaining than the stupidity of you two.

 

I hope the candidates say something relevant, which would give both of them a leg up on you.

 

Yet another start by Kyle Hendricks without that expected meltdown. Maybe it just isn't going to happen. He could still get another start, but today's six shutout innings gives him a 1.99 ERA over 185 innings pitched. Obvioiusly, the innings pitched are a negative for him, but that ERA should put him in the discussion.

 

I just have a hard time when others have 30-40 more innings. At the same time, I feel like if the name on the jersey was "Kershaw" with a 1.99 ERA over 185 IPs, I'd probably feel differently.

 

I think that last part is true for quite a lot of observers. To be fair, if the name on the jersey was Kershaw, he would probably be would likely have about 50 more strikeouts. Hell, Kershaw has more strikeouts than Hendricks this season even though he pitched 43 fewer innings.

 

He is three-quarters of a run lower than anyone who has that many more innings, though. The top three ERAs are Hendricks (1.99/185 IP), Lester (2.28/197) and Syndergaard (2.63/177).

I don't know why Bumgarner (2.71) and Scherzer (2.82) would be the better choice because they pitched more innings with nothing close to the same effectiveness. Is the award for best pitcher or most frequent pitcher?

 

Pitching deep into games is part of how you provide value to your team, though.

 

Holding the opponent to two runs in 6 1/3 innings is a hell of a lot more valuable than holding the opponent to three runs in seven innings. That's what we're comparing, broken down to an average start for each. If you're voting for an innings hoss, you're voting solely because of innings. That seems ridiculous.

BTW Hendricks is up to fifth in the league in FIP, sandwiched between Scherzer and Bumgarner. He is blowing the field away in ERA+, at 201 to runner-up Lester's 176.

 

I don't have a huge issue with Hendricks winning it, if he does. It seems weird to me to give it to someone who has 185 innings because he doesn't pitch deep into games. But that might be a function of his youth, as well. I wouldn't want to look back and find out we didn't give the next Greg Maddux the Cy Young Award when he had a sub-2.00 ERA just because it didn't look like we think a sub-2.00 ERA should look in 2016.

 

Does ESPN's Cy Young Predictor have any history to track? They have Hendricks fourth behind Lester (who is well ahead of the field), Scherzer and Kenley Jansen.

I don't understand Lester over Hendricks at all. He isn't even very far ahead in innings or strikeouts. Could be looking at a WINS!!! based decision if that happens.

 

It's funny that Hendricks is thought of as a soft tosser these days. Tom Seaver led the league three times in SOs with a lower SO/9 rate than Hendricks. Bob Gibson had a higher SO/9 than Hendricks' 8.1 once in his career.