How can Kershaw be the Cy Young? I don't get it! It seems to be based off of the Fielding Independant Pitching Stat (or whatever it's called), and I will admit I don't know what goes into that completely. I'm guessing, though, that Greinke is being punished via that stat for pitching into contact (something that genius pitchers like Greg Maddux were known to do). Kershaw's Independent Pitching numbers were much better because his strikeout numbers (301K) were extremely high. Therefore he was getting more outs with less balls being put into play. However, what a strikeout shares with a ground out and a fly out is the that an offensive player is out. And you can get a fly out or a ground out with one pitch. A strikeout still takes three pitches. So Greinke can get more outs on fewer pitches and stay stronger deep into games. I will admit that Kershaw was dominant this year, but take a look at Greinke's game by game logs and count how many quality starts and starts he shouldve won if his team scored a decent amount of runs. I counted 30. Out of 32 starts. Meaning if in addition to the support Greinke got, if his offense had scored the opposite of an anemic amount of runs in his other starts he'd've won 30 games! Unlike Arrieta who had many poor starts the first half of the season. Greinke will likely be punished for the fact that Arrieta is over the magic 20-win number, but anyone with an interest in what happened should vote Greinke
The writer's choice of Kershaw for NL Cy Young is a real head-scratcher. According to baseball-reference.com Greinke's ERA+ is 225, while Arrieta's is 220. The numbers mean that the ERA of each of these pitchers is well less than half of the league average, normalized for extraneous factors like pitching in different ballparks.
Kershaw's ERA+ is a mere 173, still much better than league average, but vastly inferior to the gentlemen listed above. Kershaw also has only 16 wins, compared to 19 for Greinke and 22 for Arrieta.
My choice would be Arrieta based on the combination of wins and ERA+, but given Greinke's other-worldly ERA+, I wouldn't quibble if he were the winner. But Kershaw? No way.
Kershaw's ERA+ is a mere 173, still much better than league average, but vastly inferior to the gentlemen listed above. Kershaw also has only 16 wins, compared to 19 for Greinke and 22 for Arrieta.
My choice would be Arrieta based on the combination of wins and ERA+, but given Greinke's other-worldly ERA+, I wouldn't quibble if he were the winner. But Kershaw? No way.
4
Three corrections:
Jake Arrieta for NL Cy Young
Matt Duffy for NL Rookie of the Year
Joe Maddon for NL Manager of the Year
Jake Arrieta for NL Cy Young
Matt Duffy for NL Rookie of the Year
Joe Maddon for NL Manager of the Year
1
I suppose that since the article is merely an opinion piece that the writer can choose whoever he prefers. However, not opining for Jake Arrieta and the NL Cy Young winner and Joe Maddon as the NL Manager of the Year seems typically dismissive of the Cubs because they haven't won the World Series since 1908. The basis of giving the Cy Young to Kershaw seems to be his overall body of work, past years included. But this is an annual award and I defy anyone to name a pitcher who has been more dominant this year than Arrieta. What does the guy have to do? Clean up the stands after the game? And, giving Matheny the award is basically giving him the award for showing up every day and throwing darts at his roster to see who plays. Maddon changed everything about the Cubs and strategically is as good as managers come. Lay off the bi-coastal bias and smarten up
3
So according to the writer, Arrieta does not deserve the NL Cy Young. He has the most wins, lowest ERA and is on a playoff team. He has turned in the best second half in the history of baseball. This makes me think Mr. Kepner is angling for a job with a job where you get paid by the click, because he must have an ulterior motive besides good analysis.
1
Tough picks. I think the Cubs pitcher should win. However, one candidate for AL Manager of the Year is not mentioned. Joe Girardi. He has taken a very mediocre team, lots of injuries etc and got them to the playoffs. I say this as a die hard Red Sox fan. But that guy has managed every game, all 162 or them expertly. Without him they have a losing record. Just saying.
1
I think your discussion about FIP and how you used it to compare Greinke and Kershaw says more about FIP than the pitchers. I don't buy that Grienke and Kershaw had considerably different defenses behind them during the year.
1
Arrieta has been the best pitcher in the NL the past two months. Kershaw has been the best pitcher in the NL the past four months. Greinke has been the best pitcher in the NL all year. His ERA is historically low. An easy call for Cy Young. As for Harper: why punish him because the rest of his team has underachieved? Very few players in the HISTORY of baseball have done what he has done this year. And the nonsense about him not hustling is just that: nonsense. Anyone who watched the Nats play regularly this year knows that few players in baseball -- maybe none -- play harder. And his teammates, by the way, love him (except for one reliever with a history of causing clubhouse trouble wherever he goes)....
I also disagree on Harper. The MVP is value to his team of course, as baseball is a team sport. Harper had an outstanding year. But a true MVP would have pulled his team across the line somehow or other, inspiring his teammates as he went. Instead, Harper's stellar numbers inspired ennui in his teammates. The only one who didn't seem to be on valium is Jonathan Pappelbon, who is being sent to coventry lest anyone blame Harper, but who perhaps had a few home truths to impart.
I don't think MVPs dog it down to first base. Sorry. There are other worthy candidates.
I don't think MVPs dog it down to first base. Sorry. There are other worthy candidates.
2
Did you actually watch the play that incited Papelbon? It was a medium fly ball to left field and Harper ran it out, touched first base, and turned to the dugout. Papelbon, who's had his problems with other teams, apparently took personal offense at what he perceived to be a lack of hustle that he alone -- or he alone and you -- noted. Sorry for Harper and the rest of us Nationals fans that the season did not end the way we wanted, but as we say Here, "Wait 'til next year."
1
These awards that are bestowed by our hallowed baseball writers are becoming a joke. Some years MVP's just have to come from a winning team, so what has changed? The Nats are a huge disappointment, so why reward Harper? Good luck in Washington Max. I bet you'll never win a World Series but you can count your money till you die.
Bryce Harper for MVP is a mistake. For all his numbers, it's questionable how valuable he is to that team. Everyone has observed that something is very wrong in Washington, and most have chalked it up to Matt Williams, a terrible manager who rightly deserves a big chunk of the blame.
But I wonder about Harper's effect on his teammates. He doesn't seem to be Mr. Popular in Washington, to say the least. And the Nats can always finish out of the playoffs without Bryce Harper. I really wonder how much of the dysfunction on that team is attributable to this guy.
Harper is a pick based solely on raw numbers, without any sense of the real value of those numbers to his team, and is also a result of the echo chamber environment that the sports media operates in. You media guys have been picking Harper since before the All-Star break. One media story about MVP picks begets two more media stories about MVP picks, and pretty soon it just becomes a cacophony of the media clones.
No player was more valuable to an NL team who made the postseason than Yoenis Cespedes was to the Mets, but if you insist on picking a player from a team that finished out of the running, a better pick would be Joey Votto, who has had a historic second half which isn’t even mentioned in this article.
Harper is a very good young player, with a great future. Hands down, he wins the Most Gaudy Stats Award. But he is a questionable teammate, and he has not yet proven that he is the most valuable player.
But I wonder about Harper's effect on his teammates. He doesn't seem to be Mr. Popular in Washington, to say the least. And the Nats can always finish out of the playoffs without Bryce Harper. I really wonder how much of the dysfunction on that team is attributable to this guy.
Harper is a pick based solely on raw numbers, without any sense of the real value of those numbers to his team, and is also a result of the echo chamber environment that the sports media operates in. You media guys have been picking Harper since before the All-Star break. One media story about MVP picks begets two more media stories about MVP picks, and pretty soon it just becomes a cacophony of the media clones.
No player was more valuable to an NL team who made the postseason than Yoenis Cespedes was to the Mets, but if you insist on picking a player from a team that finished out of the running, a better pick would be Joey Votto, who has had a historic second half which isn’t even mentioned in this article.
Harper is a very good young player, with a great future. Hands down, he wins the Most Gaudy Stats Award. But he is a questionable teammate, and he has not yet proven that he is the most valuable player.
5
Generally MVPs are won by the "gaudy stats" guy who played on a division winner. Sometimes there is no such candidate. Cespedes only played 60 games for the Mets, so that would be an unprecedented choice. You may disagree with the choice of Harper, but the idea that it's an unreasonable choice seems to be based on some vague idea that somehow he hurt the Nationals chances. Because we don't like him we assume somehow his teammates didn't like him or couldn't play well because of him. "Not Mr Popular"? That's how MVP's are measured? Scherzer seems to like him OK. The poisonous Papelbon didn't. I think I'm OK with Harper as MVP, but if I thought another player was more worthy I wouldn't trash Harper on the basis that he's a "questionable teammate"? How? What did he do, while the Nats were still competitive, besides put up tremendous results, to hurt or hinder his team? He failed to, what, inspire his teammates to be as good as he was?
4
I think you make great points JOELEEH, very sensible and well put. Maybe I'm just more old school in my thinking, but I think the MVP has to be the player that did the most to propel his team to the most success, and I'm sure you'll agree that individual stats alone are never a good way to identify that player. Maybe I've been too critical of Harper, but I still don't think anyone can identify him as a player that propelled his team to any success at all this season. He's not remotely the MVP in that light.
I agree. Flash back to the days of Ted Williams, who was also a supreme talent and not necessarily very likeable. How many MVP awards was he denied because of this bias?
And of course nobody from the Yankees is close to being on ANY of the lists... as usual for quite a while now...
2
Who would you like? Aroid? Brittle Tex? Maybe the person who signs the checks?
Indeed. Somehow, some way, replace Girardi with Mattingly, Just do it!
Who would you want pitching in a 1 game playoff?
The obvious answer is Arrieta. Amazing what he has done for the Cubs since his arrival and yet he has never even made an All-Star game. This is because the AS game is only about first half stats. The Cy Young should be about the whole year, and amazingly Arrieta has gotten stronger and stronger with each passing week, even into October.
While in most years either Dodger would be a great selection, this year it has to go to Arrieta. He has been the ultimate stopper and has faced much tougher opposition in the NL Central.
The obvious answer is Arrieta. Amazing what he has done for the Cubs since his arrival and yet he has never even made an All-Star game. This is because the AS game is only about first half stats. The Cy Young should be about the whole year, and amazingly Arrieta has gotten stronger and stronger with each passing week, even into October.
While in most years either Dodger would be a great selection, this year it has to go to Arrieta. He has been the ultimate stopper and has faced much tougher opposition in the NL Central.
9
I agree. We have a strange phenomenon this year - the 3 teams with the best records in baseball all come from the NL Central, even after spending the entire year beating up on each other. Arrieta has 22 wins, 236 SOs, and a WHIP of 0.865. He is the one NL pitcher with a legitimate claim on MVP this year. No doubt he's the Cy Young winner.
4
"Lindor has the edge in batting average (.317 to .282), and his defensive metrics score higher."
Edge? The difference in accomplishment between batting averages of .317 and .282 is a lot more than arithmetic difference alone suggests. Of all major league players with at least 3,000 plate appearances, just 60 have finished with a career average of .317 or higher. One active player would be added if his career were ending now: Miguel Cabrera, at .321. There are 574 players on the same list with averages of .282 or higher; 49 are active. For reference the batting average of all MLB players since league play began in the 1870s stands at .261.
Lindor is averaging about .350 since the All Star break; one of the highest numbers in MLB. His WAR is 4.6 vs. 4.2 for Correa. Sacrifice hits: Lindor 13, tops in MLB for position players despite a debut date of June 14. Correa, none. Defensive play -- Lindor better, as you noted.
I see Lindor more than a national baseball writer would and hope the voters choose Lindor.
Edge? The difference in accomplishment between batting averages of .317 and .282 is a lot more than arithmetic difference alone suggests. Of all major league players with at least 3,000 plate appearances, just 60 have finished with a career average of .317 or higher. One active player would be added if his career were ending now: Miguel Cabrera, at .321. There are 574 players on the same list with averages of .282 or higher; 49 are active. For reference the batting average of all MLB players since league play began in the 1870s stands at .261.
Lindor is averaging about .350 since the All Star break; one of the highest numbers in MLB. His WAR is 4.6 vs. 4.2 for Correa. Sacrifice hits: Lindor 13, tops in MLB for position players despite a debut date of June 14. Correa, none. Defensive play -- Lindor better, as you noted.
I see Lindor more than a national baseball writer would and hope the voters choose Lindor.
1
Well, this "writer" got Correa right.
Matheny presides over a team that has been consistently excellent. Terry Collins presides over a team that STILL hasn't recovered from being Madoffed. When the Mets were in second place and teetering on the brink of obscurity, they had two series against the presumptive division and, if you listen to Bryce ("where's my ring") Harper, World Series winner. The Mets won all six games and the Gnats haven't been heard from since. He managed young pitchers, had a conga line of undependable bullpen presences (save Jeurys Familia), had his captain and talisman sidelined for much of the year, reduced a big ticket free agent (Michael Cuddyer) to right handed hitting platoon with a rookie.
By far, Collins had the most, and the most challenging, managing to do in the league. He's had a much better season than Matheny has had THIS year, which is all that counts.
By far, Collins had the most, and the most challenging, managing to do in the league. He's had a much better season than Matheny has had THIS year, which is all that counts.
11
There are a lot of problems with argument. You say Matheny presides over a team that has been consistently excellent with no mention of the losses of Wainwright, Holliday, Adams or Tavares. And now Molina. ANd yet the excellence was not only maintained, but they won 100 games.
Sure Collins managed young pitchers. In contrast to Matheny, the Mets ace came back as the Cards' got injured.
If you wish to credit Collins with it, go ahead, but since when is it a good thing to reduce your big ticket free agent to a Platoon player?
And lastly, how can you say Collins had a better season? 100 wins. In the harder division. Nothing left to say.
Sure Collins managed young pitchers. In contrast to Matheny, the Mets ace came back as the Cards' got injured.
If you wish to credit Collins with it, go ahead, but since when is it a good thing to reduce your big ticket free agent to a Platoon player?
And lastly, how can you say Collins had a better season? 100 wins. In the harder division. Nothing left to say.
1
Nick, simply put, Terry Collins did about 10 games worse than Matheny with talent worthy of being 20 games adrift. How often was Matheny forced to use lineups with three players (pitchers excepted) south of the Mendoza line, as Collins had to prior to the trading deadline deals? Eric Campbell was used as a sub .200 cleanup hitter.
Yes, the Mets' ace came back. Did Matheny have to deal with any agents like $cott Bora$ criticizing the use of a pitcher, going public in the middle of a pennant race?
You are free to differ, but St Loo rightfully loves its Cards, and is in a one newspaper town. New York is a 24 hour a day media feeding frenzy, with sports talk radio adding to everyone's blood pressure. Collins guiding the underdog Mets (did anyone predict before the season the Cards NOT making the playoffs? Did anyone predict the Mets MAKING the playoffs?) past the heavily favored Gnats does it for me. You are free to disagree. The Mets wildly surpassed expectations, the underachivement of Michael Cuddyer notwithstanding. The Cardinals slightly surpassed expectations.
Four of the Mets' five starting infielders (including catcher) spent time on the DL this year.
Yes, the Mets' ace came back. Did Matheny have to deal with any agents like $cott Bora$ criticizing the use of a pitcher, going public in the middle of a pennant race?
You are free to differ, but St Loo rightfully loves its Cards, and is in a one newspaper town. New York is a 24 hour a day media feeding frenzy, with sports talk radio adding to everyone's blood pressure. Collins guiding the underdog Mets (did anyone predict before the season the Cards NOT making the playoffs? Did anyone predict the Mets MAKING the playoffs?) past the heavily favored Gnats does it for me. You are free to disagree. The Mets wildly surpassed expectations, the underachivement of Michael Cuddyer notwithstanding. The Cardinals slightly surpassed expectations.
Four of the Mets' five starting infielders (including catcher) spent time on the DL this year.
2
In the cases of Kershaw and Mike Matheny/St. Louis Cardinals, CONTINUED excellence/dominance has NOTHING to do with it. That is why a different award is given out EACH YEAR. Just like the NY Times, I don't vote on these awards either. If I did, it would be Jake Arrieta for NL Cy Young, and a very deserving Terry Collins, whose Mets were supposed to be cleaning out lockers tomorrow and watching the Nationals play ball on TV.
5
Agreed, except Kershaw for NL Cy Young. He had a down period during the year, which you have ignored, yet you have denied Keuchel for AL Cy Young because he had one bad game. Further on Price, I would give him the nod; he showed MVP chops on his arrival to the Blue Jays.
1
I would differ on the pick for NL CY. Jake Arrieta has been lights out since the All-Star break, as your article notes "lowest [ERA] in major league history". Yesterdays game is a good example, another ZERO ERA game for Arrieta. I'd have to give more weight to the second half of the season than the first.
7
Joe Madden should be the N.L. Manager of the Year. Madden has taken the lead among managers in utilizing statistics to position defensive players.