KB = MVP

[TruffleShuffle]

flip out? that's a contender for tweet of the year.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I wouldn't have had Hendricks in my top 5 of voting.

 

That's a bit much, there's a more than logical argument for him to be at the top of the list. But really it's no outrage that Scherzer won, and the actual voting tallies are zero surprise since Lester and Hendricks were going to split the homer/local vote.

I would have had Syndergaard and Fernandez 1-2. They were the best pitchers in the National League in FIP and WAR and were near the top in ERA and strikeouts. Hendricks would have been 4th for me at best.

 

That's not illogical, but FIP is also not going to give Hendricks his due because of how well he avoids hard contact. Those two also didn't throw any more innings than Hendricks either. Scherzer did throw those innings, although from a pure ERA standpoint Hendricks could've stayed in games longer with a 7 ERA and still come out ahead, plus their FIPs were the same.

 

Really it all underscores that there were 7 or so really really good pitchers this year, 8 if you include Kershaw. None of them would've been horrific choices, and the gaps between them are small enough that the ordering doesn't matter.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm glad verlander didn't win just to see Kate Upton flip out on Twitter

 

Edit: beaten

We know who has Jed hoyers Twitter account

[17 Seconds]

scherzer looks like a backwoods bradley cooper

[MUCubsfan]

I think Thor is trying to get a sympathy horsefeathers...

 

[Thrilho]

I wouldn't have had Hendricks in my top 5 of voting.

 

That's a bit much, there's a more than logical argument for him to be at the top of the list. But really it's no outrage that Scherzer won, and the actual voting tallies are zero surprise since Lester and Hendricks were going to split the homer/local vote.

I would have had Syndergaard and Fernandez 1-2. They were the best pitchers in the National League in FIP and WAR and were near the top in ERA and strikeouts. Hendricks would have been 4th for me at best.

 

I'd have given it to Hendricks. I can see the argument for Scherzer just because he pitched so many innings. The more 38 more innings from Scherzer is like 5 more starts, so I can see how that could be more important than the.85 difference in ERA. I don't agree but I can see it. 25/30 is definitely surprising though.

 

With Syndergaard and Fernandez, and to a large extent Scherzer, you're looking at the FIP, the fWAR, and the Ks. But it's all kind of a circle jerk because Ks drive FIP and that drives the fWAR. Ks are important and they're great to use for projection, but when you're giving out an award for performance this season I'd weight results more than what this FIP formula says should have happened with normalized defense and hard/soft contact.

 

More than anything I think the writers saw a whole Cubs pitching staff performing great and the historical defense/BABIP and it didn't really matter what Hendricks ERA was. Could've been under 2 and it still would've been asterisked all the hell. If I'd have had a vote I'd like to think I'd have dug in pretty deep to figure out how much was Hendricks because 2.12 is no joke, especially for the best team in baseball.

 

This FG article does a good breakdown of the three candidates from innings 1-5 and 6-9. I don't dig the analysis that much, but what I'd take from it is that by wOBA against Hendricks was still better (.283 vs .285) than Scherzer in innings 6-9. ERA in a 40 IP sample is unreliable and as always the FIP is K focused, and those both hurt Hendricks. But wOBA is pure results with no sequencing or skewing how you got the results, and by that measure Hendricks probably could have stayed in and gotten those extra innings.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/community/a-different-look-at-the-2016-nl-cy-young/

 

Either way, I can see the argument for Scherzer or most of these other guys. Glad Kyle got the vote of the players last week though, that might mean about as much even if it's not as publicized.

[mul21]

Who is Todd Zolecki and how does he have a job? He left Hendricks off his ballot.

[David]

 

That's a bit much, there's a more than logical argument for him to be at the top of the list. But really it's no outrage that Scherzer won, and the actual voting tallies are zero surprise since Lester and Hendricks were going to split the homer/local vote.

I would have had Syndergaard and Fernandez 1-2. They were the best pitchers in the National League in FIP and WAR and were near the top in ERA and strikeouts. Hendricks would have been 4th for me at best.

 

I'd have given it to Hendricks. I can see the argument for Scherzer just because he pitched so many innings. The more 38 more innings from Scherzer is like 5 more starts, so I can see how that could be more important than the.85 difference in ERA. I don't agree but I can see it. 25/30 is definitely surprising though.

 

With Syndergaard and Fernandez, and to a large extent Scherzer, you're looking at the FIP, the fWAR, and the Ks. But it's all kind of a circle jerk because Ks drive FIP and that drives the fWAR. Ks are important and they're great to use for projection, but when you're giving out an award for performance this season I'd weight results more than what this FIP formula says should have happened with normalized defense and hard/soft contact.

 

More than anything I think the writers saw a whole Cubs pitching staff performing great and the historical defense/BABIP and it didn't really matter what Hendricks ERA was. Could've been under 2 and it still would've been asterisked all the hell. If I'd have had a vote I'd like to think I'd have dug in pretty deep to figure out how much was Hendricks because 2.12 is no joke, especially for the best team in baseball.

 

This FG article does a good breakdown of the three candidates from innings 1-5 and 6-9. I don't dig the analysis that much, but what I'd take from it is that by wOBA against Hendricks was still better (.283 vs .285) than Scherzer in innings 6-9. ERA in a 40 IP sample is unreliable and as always the FIP is K focused, and those both hurt Hendricks. But wOBA is pure results with no sequencing or skewing how you got the results, and by that measure Hendricks probably could have stayed in and gotten those extra innings.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/community/a-different-look-at-the-2016-nl-cy-young/

 

Either way, I can see the argument for Scherzer or most of these other guys. Glad Kyle got the vote of the players last week though, that might mean about as much even if it's not as publicized.

 

Just out of curiosity, who votes on that team defense award that the Giants got the other day?

[biittner77]

Scherzer won 20 games. That still matters to the type of people that vote for these things. Maybe it wasn't the first criteria but in a close race I'm sure it was the tie breaker.

[Thrilho]

Scherzer won 20 games. That still matters to the type of people that vote for these things. Maybe it wasn't the first criteria but in a close race I'm sure it was the tie breaker.

Man, for the sake of the writers' credibility I hope that wasn't a driving factor behind the landslide win. I think at that point you'd have to say the players are now somehow more SABR savvy than the writers, at least with respect to this award. Or at least less lazy.

 

Btw here are the last couple lines from that FG article. Seems pretty lazy to me, where you could probably slip a wins argument in and it would fit just fine.

 

Scherzer threw the most innings in the NL this year and was the undeniable ace of the Nationals’ staff. The two Cubs pitchers may lose the Cy Young race, but they will be just fine with the hardware that they already earned this year.

 

The statistical analysis throughout was pretty light and FIP-based, and then he drops this gem on us to finish it off. Well...Scherzer pitched a lot of innings and he's definitely an ace. That's Cy Young numbers, dude!

[David]

Scherzer won 20 games. That still matters to the type of people that vote for these things. Maybe it wasn't the first criteria but in a close race I'm sure it was the tie breaker.

Man, for the sake of the writers' credibility I hope that wasn't a driving factor behind the landslide win. I think at that point you'd have to say the players are now somehow more SABR savvy than the writers, at least with respect to this award. Or at least less lazy.

 

Btw here are the last couple lines from that FG article. Seems pretty lazy to me, where you could probably slip a wins argument in and it would fit just fine.

 

Scherzer threw the most innings in the NL this year and was the undeniable ace of the Nationals’ staff. The two Cubs pitchers may lose the Cy Young race, but they will be just fine with the hardware that they already earned this year.

 

The statistical analysis throughout was pretty light and FIP-based, and then he drops this gem on us to finish it off. Well...Scherzer pitched a lot of innings and he's definitely an ace. That's Cy Young numbers, dude!

 

If you pitch more innings at a higher level, yes, that makes an even more compelling case than just pitching at a higher level. And if you're making an FIP based argument, then you think Scherzer pitched at a higher level.

[Thrilho]

Scherzer won 20 games. That still matters to the type of people that vote for these things. Maybe it wasn't the first criteria but in a close race I'm sure it was the tie breaker.

Man, for the sake of the writers' credibility I hope that wasn't a driving factor behind the landslide win. I think at that point you'd have to say the players are now somehow more SABR savvy than the writers, at least with respect to this award. Or at least less lazy.

 

Btw here are the last couple lines from that FG article. Seems pretty lazy to me, where you could probably slip a wins argument in and it would fit just fine.

 

Scherzer threw the most innings in the NL this year and was the undeniable ace of the Nationals’ staff. The two Cubs pitchers may lose the Cy Young race, but they will be just fine with the hardware that they already earned this year.

 

The statistical analysis throughout was pretty light and FIP-based, and then he drops this gem on us to finish it off. Well...Scherzer pitched a lot of innings and he's definitely an ace. That's Cy Young numbers, dude!

 

If you pitch more innings at a higher level, yes, that makes an even more compelling case than just pitching at a higher level. And if you're making an FIP based argument, then you think Scherzer pitched at a higher level.

 

Sure, like I said in my first post, I can see the argument that the extra innings coupled with the close FIP numbers (3.20 for Hendricks v 3.24 for Scherzer) as a reasonable argument. But what that guy laid out was, in my opinion, junk.

 

- He completely glosses over the fact that in innings 1-5 Hendricks lays waste to Scherzer in ERA while also beating him the precious FIP stat

 

- Doesn't mention the much higher GB% in both sets of stats that support the Hendricks' FIP-ERA gap

 

- Uses Hendricks' FIP AND FIP-ERA in the 40 IP sample as virtually his only arguments that Hendricks is bad in late innings. But 40 IP sample...c'mon even if you like FIP you have to provide some qualifiers and hopefully use some other data in a sample that small. Especially when late in the game Hendricks is probably not trying to strike anyone out.

 

- Claims Scherzer "takes a small statistical hit but still pitches at a Cy Young level late in the game" without providing any statistical support (nope not even a FIP comparison)

 

- Again, no reference to wOBA, where Hendricks comes out ahead

 

- Then wraps it up with some stuff about the Cubs defense and that quote above that only references Scherzer's innings

 

So I'd be relatively ok with someone saying "38 more innings at equivalent FIP was enough." Again, I think FIP itself is a stat without enough nuance that should be used for projection more than performance awards but that's me. What I don't like is the thought that wins played a part or when I see what I perceive to be lazy arguments. Maybe all 30 writers thought it through thoroughly, but if that article is any indication I'm not holding my breath assuming that their thought process was any good.

[David]

why did i think scherzer's fielding independent numbers were better than that? oh well.

[Tedward]

Who is Todd Zolecki and how does he have a job? He left Hendricks off his ballot.

 

He's the Phillies beat reporter. For either the Inquirer or Daily News, not sure which.

[SouthSideRyan]

Has anybody pointed out that our reps were Bruce Miles and a guy from the Kyodo News?

[Clem Fandango]

Scherzer won 20 games. That still matters to the type of people that vote for these things. Maybe it wasn't the first criteria but in a close race I'm sure it was the tie breaker.

Man, for the sake of the writers' credibility I hope that wasn't a driving factor behind the landslide win. I think at that point you'd have to say the players are now somehow more SABR savvy than the writers, at least with respect to this award. Or at least less lazy.

 

When you look at the AL vote pretty much all you can deduce is Porcello's 22-4 record is what got him the Cy Young over Verlander who was better than him in almost every statistical category. It's funny seeing Kate Upton flip out, but she had legit beef.

[David]

Scherzer won 20 games. That still matters to the type of people that vote for these things. Maybe it wasn't the first criteria but in a close race I'm sure it was the tie breaker.

Man, for the sake of the writers' credibility I hope that wasn't a driving factor behind the landslide win. I think at that point you'd have to say the players are now somehow more SABR savvy than the writers, at least with respect to this award. Or at least less lazy.

 

When you look at the AL vote pretty much all you can deduce is Porcello's 22-4 record is what got him the Cy Young over Verlander who was better than him in almost every statistical category. It's funny seeing Kate Upton flip out, but she had legit beef.

 

well, to be honest, what got him the cy young over verlander is two people not having him on their ballots. not that porcello even deserved all those second place votes.

[Clem Fandango]

That too, but if Porcello's record was, say, 17-7 instead of 22-4, who gets more 2nd place votes Porcello or Kluber?

[UMFan83]

The thing that annoys me is comparing Hendricks and Scherzer based the argument "Scherzer pitches more effectively late into games", which doesn't appear to be true.

 

First of all if you look at IP per start, Hendricks is at roughly 6.1 IP per start, Scherzer at 6.2 IP per start.

 

Now look at the effectiveness later in starts

 

Hendricks vs. batter 3rd PA in a start: .214/.263/.358/.622

Scherzer vs. batter 3rd PA in a start: .246/.297/.447/.743

 

Both pitched to a batter for the 4th time less than 25 PAs this year so the sample doesn't really give you anything.

 

How about by IP

 

Hendricks in 7th-9th innings: .194/.242/.387/.629

Scherzer in 7th-9th innings: .250/.284/.474/.758

 

So yeah Hendricks did pitch late into games less (Max pitched at least 7 IP 20 times, Hendricks only 7 times), but when he did he was more effective than Scherzer.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The thing that annoys me is comparing Hendricks and Scherzer based the argument "Scherzer pitches more effectively late into games", which doesn't appear to be true.

 

First of all if you look at IP per start, Hendricks is at roughly 6.1 IP per start, Scherzer at 6.2 IP per start.

 

Now look at the effectiveness later in starts

 

Hendricks vs. batter 3rd PA in a start: .214/.263/.358/.622

Scherzer vs. batter 3rd PA in a start: .246/.297/.447/.743

 

Both pitched to a batter for the 4th time less than 25 PAs this year so the sample doesn't really give you anything.

 

How about by IP

 

Hendricks in 7th-9th innings: .194/.242/.387/.629

Scherzer in 7th-9th innings: .250/.284/.474/.758

 

So yeah Hendricks did pitch late into games less (Max pitched at least 7 IP 20 times, Hendricks only 7 times), but when he did he was more effective than Scherzer.

 

There's a causation at play here. Scherzer had about 80 more PA the 3rd time through the order and 12 more IP in innings 7 through 9 because Hendricks was only selectively allowed to face those situations, maximizing his odds for success. Think of Game 7 for an extreme example, Hendricks was pulled before the heart of the order got a 3rd crack at him because the game was in the balance. Or in the regular season he might only start the 7th inning if he were facing the bottom half of the order.

 

That said, you can assume replacement level pitching to fill in that innings gap and Hendricks still has a compelling argument, but it's not unfair to credit Scherzer for having thrown those innings, lessened the impact on a bullpen, etc.

[TruffleShuffle]

bryant is NL MVP. voted first on 29 of 30 ballots.

[OleMissCub]

KB!!!!!!

 

Golden Spikes, Minor League Player of the Year, Rookie of the Year, and MVP in 4 straight seasons. AMAZING.

[NewUserName]

Kris Bryant's fiancee is not going to be a hot baseball wife

[TruffleShuffle]

KB!!!!!!

 

Golden Spikes, Minor League Player of the Year, Rookie of the Year, and MVP in 4 straight seasons. AMAZING.

 

you forgot one.

 

WORLD SERIES CHAMPION

[ConstableRabbit]

Man, this season was a dream.