I can't speak for the AL winners, but it's hard to argue with any of the winners in the NL. Though I'm surprised Baez didn't win, and I think Billy Hamilton deserves some kind of recognition for his defense at some point. 

Ohtani wins AL ROY

Acuna wins in the NL

APIAD wrote:

Both seem to be adequate picks

No problem with Acuna. The AL recipient pitched in 10 games, started another 82 at DH and appeared in another 12, one would assume as a pinch hitter.
Defensively, he handled seven chances all season.
Miguel Andujar surpassed the AL recipient in nearly every qualifiable offensive category. He is by no means even an average defensive player, but he actually had to bring a baseball glove with him almost every day he was in the lineup.

 

APIAD wrote:

Ohtani offensive numbers are 200ab short of andujar. So you have to factor in pitching and thats a debate thats never been done before. That alone is reason enough for the vote imo.

He pitched in 10 games. Matheny typically used Bowman in 10 games over the course of two weeks.

I certainly cant argue for the dh.

artie_fufkin wrote:

And if Jacob deGrom wins the NL Cy with a 10-9 record pitching for a fourth place team that was mathematically eliminated from the post-season on Memorial Day, I'm never taking any of these awards seriously ever again.

Someone better check on Artie.

deGrom wins in the NL

Blake Snell wins in the AL

APIAD wrote:

Whos blake snell?

Pitcher for the Rays. Led the American League in wins. Believe it or not, there are people who actually think the objective of a baseball game is to win it, not compile statistics like WAR and VORP and strikeouts per nine innings and such.
 

artie_fufkin wrote:

APIAD wrote:

Whos blake snell?

Pitcher for the Rays. Led the American League in wins. Believe it or not, there are people who actually think the objective of a baseball game is to win it, not compile statistics like WAR and VORP and strikeouts per nine innings and such.
 

Artie, I understand what you're saying, and normally I'd agree, but deGrom was damn good this year, and his stats weren't inflated by a lot of 5 inning starts.  He pitched 217 innings in 32 starts and that includes a 4 inning start that he left due to an injury and a 1 inning start he left due to rain.  Take those out, that 212 innings in 30 starts.  That's 7 inning per start.

Other than the two I mentioned above, deGrom had only one start (Opening Day) in which he didn't pitch at least 6 innings.  He gave up 4 runs in a game once all season.  That's 28 quality starts.  deGrom had 6 starts where he pitched 8 innings, gave up 2 runs or fewer and either lost or got a no-decision.

217 IP, 269 strikeouts, only 46 walks and an ERA of 1.70.  The CYA has always been about the best pitcher, not the best pitcher on a winning team.  Other than the fact that his team didn't score when he pitched, it's pretty tough to argue he wasn't the best pitcher in the league.

artie_fufkin wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

Pitcher for the Rays. Led the American League in wins. Believe it or not, there are people who actually think the objective of a baseball game is to win it, not compile statistics like WAR and VORP and strikeouts per nine innings and such.
 

Artie, I understand what you're saying, and normally I'd agree, but deGrom was damn good this year, and his stats weren't inflated by a lot of 5 inning starts.  He pitched 217 innings in 32 starts and that includes a 4 inning start that he left due to an injury and a 1 inning start he left due to rain.  Take those out, that 212 innings in 30 starts.  That's 7 inning per start.

Other than the two I mentioned above, deGrom had only one start (Opening Day) in which he didn't pitch at least 6 innings.  He gave up 4 runs in a game once all season.  That's 28 quality starts.  deGrom had 6 starts where he pitched 8 innings, gave up 2 runs or fewer and either lost or got a no-decision.

217 IP, 269 strikeouts, only 46 walks and an ERA of 1.70.  The CYA has always been about the best pitcher, not the best pitcher on a winning team.  Other than the fact that his team didn't score when he pitched, it's pretty tough to argue he wasn't the best pitcher in the league.

My beef is with the crowd that thinks wins aren't important. If wins are as random as hitting on a scratch ticket, how come Scherzer and Kershaw have led or been near the top the league in wins and winning percentage almost every year for the past decade? Are they just lucky? Or are they better pitchers than almost everyone else?
And I don't have a problem with giving the award to a starter who won 16 games if the league leader had 18 wins, and the guy with 16 wins has a lesser ERA and WHIP. But 10 wins for a starting pitcher? Please.
I also think pitching on a competitive team is important. deGrom is a fabulous pitcher, no doubt. But there's a lot less pressure to pitch when your team is 20 games out of first place in July than it is when your team is fighting for a playoff berth all summer long. Yes, there are times when a pitcher on a sucky team ought to win the CYA. Steve Carlton's 27-win season for the '72 Phillies is the one that always comes up. But he led the league in almost every category that year. deGrom led the league in ERA and fewest home runs allowed per 9 innings. That's it.

 

I get it, but it isn't like any of the top 3 pitchers were on competitive teams.  Washington and Philadelphia were barely better than the Mets.

As I said in my first post, if deGrom's numbers were padded by a bunch of 5-6 inning starts, I'm with you.  But they weren't.  As far as why he had 10 wins and other didn't, it had much more to do with the Mets offense than anything deGrom did.  At the end of the day, is the pitcher's goal to win games?  Of course.  But how does a pitcher do that? By allowing the other team to not score.  In 32 starts, deGrom only allowed 41 earned runs.  That's 34% fewer runs than Scherzer allowed and 27% fewer than Nola. 

Artie, I think you're a brilliant guy and know more about baseball than I ever will, but I'm not with you on this point. Reduced to a ridiculously simple level, does the pitcher who left the game down 2 runs after 5 whose team rallied for 3 runs in the 6th to get a win deserve more credit than the one who went 8 scoreless innings but lost in the 9th on an error? Or the one who came in in the 5th, pitched one inning, and was the beneficiary of his team's taking the lead in the 5th or 6th?

"Consider who the award is named after. He's the career leader in wins. Not ERA or WHIP or FIP or WAR or VORP. Wins."

Under that theory, Zack Godley and his 15 wins, along with his 4.74 ERA and 1.45 WHIP was a better pitcher than deGrom.  Or, for that matter, so was some guy name Ryan Yarbrough in Tampa who had 16 wins, while only starting 6 games.  He was the guy Tampa used to pitch innings 3-5 after its "opener" pitched the first 2 innings.

forsberg_us wrote:

"Consider who the award is named after. He's the career leader in wins. Not ERA or WHIP or FIP or WAR or VORP. Wins."

Under that theory, Zack Godley and his 15 wins, along with his 4.74 ERA and 1.45 WHIP was a better pitcher than deGrom.  Or, for that matter, so was some guy name Ryan Yarbrough in Tampa who had 16 wins, while only starting 6 games.  He was the guy Tampa used to pitch innings 3-5 after its "opener" pitched the first 2 innings.

I had Godley on my fantasy team, which is part of the reason why I'm retiring from fantasy baseball. 
 

Last edited by artie_fufkin (11/16/2018 12:47 pm)