Pretty simple....would you give CC Sabathia a vote for either, or both, of these awards?
Printable View
Pretty simple....would you give CC Sabathia a vote for either, or both, of these awards?
Nothing. He's 15-8. Cliff Lee gets the AL Cy and Brandon Webb gets the NL Cy.
But CC isn't 35 yet :p
Tell me who is a better pitcher in the NL.
Brandon Webb may not be better then CC but CC hasn't played the entire season in the NL. If Webb tosses 22-24 wins how can they not give it to him?
& here I was thinking that wins were more of a team factor than just who the starting pitcher was :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
They can not give it to Webb because CC is the better pitcher. That's who wins the CY
I still think the pitcher IS the most important factor in a team winning, but he needs a little help
Wins are a pretty poor barometer for how good/valuable a pitcher is, in most cases.
In the case of Cliff Lee, its been a great barometer because of how poor the team has done, but then you look in case like Daisuke Matsuzaka, hes 15-2 but almost every time he pitches he makes me cover and close my eyes because I don't want to see what happens when he puts two men on with no body out.
And Cliff Lee's 20 win season is because his team was good?Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
I agree CC is the better pitcher but the season Webb has had is pretty damn good.
I still think Webb takes it.
Is he? I think it's damn close, but not clear cut, and also, the award is for the best pitcher in a league in a season, not the best pitcher. Sometimes, better pitchers have worse years than worse pitchers.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
Anyway, C.C. has obviously been the best on a per-inning and per-game basis. That's indisputable. However, he'll end up with 16 starts in the NL, about half as much as starters that spent the full year in the NL. I can't see giving the Cy to a pitcher that spent half the year in the league. It's tough, because C.C. is probably going to end up as the best pitcher in the league overall, but the awards go one to each league, and C.C.'s value was split, which sucks, but that's the way it is.
It's between Lincecum, Santana, and Webb, and I'm leaning Lincecum more and more.
Not sure how long Rick Sutcliffe was in Chicago the year he won his Cy Young with them, but he was traded mid-seasonQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I know, he made 20 starts. Personally, I'd have given it to Gooden that year, and Sutcliffe 2nd.Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
His value isn't split... he's 15-8 this year. What's there to split? His season didn't restart when he went to Milwaukee....
It did for his NL career. His AL stats have nothing to do with how they vote for the NL Cy Young.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
ironicly if it did... he would be guarenteed the Cy Young lolQuote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
I still have a little faith in Halliday... if he gets within 1 win of Lee I thik they might give it to him. they both have 4 starts left MAYBE 5Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Cy Young no but Honestly, MVP (which it never would) I would have to give it to Him. Without him MIL does not make the playoffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
Was waiting for someone else to say what I was thinking. I think he should have a better shot at MVP than the Cy. But I know that there's no way in hell the writers would give the Cy to one pitcher & the MVP to a different one.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
can se mention linsecum from the giants??? He wont get it but he should DEFINATLY get some votes. The the problem is that CC is going to lose some votes BECAUSE he wasnt in the NL all year. That bumps webb's votes up since linsecom wont be anywhere near him with wins.
That's because that makes absolutely no sense. How can a pitcher be the most valuable player, but not the best pitcher? When it comes to awards, and who's "best", it seems to me that it should be based on value, whether or not the award specifically mentions "value" in its name or not. "Most value" and "best" are interchangable terms...to me, at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
C.C. deserves some consideration for Cy Young, although I wouldn't give it to him. He shouldn't get any consideration for the MVP award. He played half a season in the NL. In order to accumulate more value, especially as a starting pitcher, in half a season, than all the other great players that played the full season in that league, a pitcher would have to be RIDICULOUSLY awesome....more ridiculous than C.C.'s been (and he's been pretty ridiculous).
The "without him, Milwaukee doesn't make the playoffs" line doesn't work for me. Milwaukee was 4 games out of 1st, and half a game out of the Wild Card, before the trade. Now, they are 4.5 games out of first, and 5.5 ahead in the Wild Card. It was EXTREMELY possible that they would've been able to make the playoffs without him. He was a boost, no doubt, but to see they wouldn't have any shot of making the playoffs without him is just flatout wrong. Furthermore, that line of thinking ignores the entire first half of the season.
The NL Cy Young award is for the National League. C.C. has pitched half the season in the American League, and half in the National League. His value is split between the two leagues.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
One would think that this (only having your NL stats count when traded from an AL team to an NL team) would have changed with the advent of interleague play. But I suppose that would really ruffle the purist's feathers.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Even with interleague play, in terms of an NL award, the only stats that should count towards it are stats earned in NL games...include games on an AL team vs. the NL, fine, which adds 3 starts to C.C.'s "NL stats."Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
Should be based on value? Maybe if they change the Cy Young to Most Valuable Pitcher then we can have that argument I suppose. Also, I believe you have been on record as stating that the MVP should be the player who contributes the most value to his team:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
(in response to a statement by metsguy that he wouldn't like seeing Cliff Lee being named the AL MVP)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Just trying to figure out your way of seeing things is all.
What is the difference between the "best pitcher" and the "most valuable pitcher"? To me, the best player is the player who gave the most value.Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
Yes...the MVP should be the player who contributes the most value to his team...Quote:
Also, I believe you have been on record as stating that the MVP should be the player who contributes the most value to his team:
(in response to a statement by metsguy that he wouldn't like seeing Cliff Lee being named the AL MVP)
Haha, we both know that most, if not all voters, see gaping differences between best pitcher & most valuable pitcher. Lincecum is far better than he is valuable (due to the fact that adding his value on a terrible team to make them a very bad team isn't seen as being as valuable as adding webbs value to a mediocre team to turn them into a good team). For instance, the Giants would be rated a 1 or a 1.5 on team ability w/o lincecum, but are now rated, what, a 3 maybe? However, without Webb, the Dbacks would be seen as around 4.5, but with his addition they're probably viewed more as a 6.5. (based on a 1-10 scale, with 1 being the worst team in the bigs, & 10 being the best)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Though I know you'll hate the idea of more objectivity being taken into account for postseason awards.
I'm curious, are you against giving the Cy Young to a reliever then as well since they don't contribute to their team as much as starters do?
Here's where qualitative data needs to be taken into account along with the quantitative data. Sure, he hasn't pitched as much as Webb, but his addition to the Brewers (who had a very similar makeup to last year's team that completely fell apart in the 2nd half), was absolutely crucial to their confidence, especially when you also take into account his postseason experience when being added to this young squad. To ignore qualitative data is to limit the scope of the study.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I know. I've been talking about how I'd vote and how I think it should be done. I know very well that's not how it will be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
So they're both worth around 2 points on this 1-10 scale, which makes them, equally valuable. How good the team is should have no bearing on how valuable one individual player is. Two identical players, one on a bad team and one on a good team, are equally valuable to their teams. The teammates a player has does not (or rather, should not) affect his individual value.Quote:
Lincecum is far better than he is valuable (due to the fact that adding his value on a terrible team to make them a very bad team isn't seen as being as valuable as adding webbs value to a mediocre team to turn them into a good team). For instance, the Giants would be rated a 1 or a 1.5 on team ability w/o lincecum, but are now rated, what, a 3 maybe? However, without Webb, the Dbacks would be seen as around 4.5, but with his addition they're probably viewed more as a 6.5. (based on a 1-10 scale, with 1 being the worst team in the bigs, & 10 being the best)
:confused:Quote:
Though I know you'll hate the idea of more objectivity being taken into account for postseason awards.
As I said in the thread on this issue, I'd give the Cy Young to a reliever...as long as he was actually the most valuable pitcher in the league. It's possible for a reliever to contribute more than a starter. It's possible for the best reliever in the league to have contributed more than the best starter, but very rare.Quote:
I'm curious, are you against giving the Cy Young to a reliever then as well since they don't contribute to their team as much as starters do?
I don't think "confidence giving" and "experience" has as much value as 80+ innings of high-quality pitching. Sure, it can bump up Sabathia some, but I don't think enough to overcome the top pitchers that spent the entire season in the NL.Quote:
Here's where qualitative data needs to be taken into account along with the quantitative data. Sure, he hasn't pitched as much as Webb, but his addition to the Brewers (who had a very similar makeup to last year's team that completely fell apart in the 2nd half), was absolutely crucial to their confidence, especially when you also take into account his postseason experience when being added to this young squad. To ignore qualitative data is to limit the scope of the study.
As I stated above, as of right now, my Cy Young vote would go to Tim Lincecum. Webb's the likely winner, barring a collapse and Lincecum earning wins in the rest of his starts.
For another "take", the NL's VORP leaders among pitchers:
Tim Lincecum 62.7
Johan Santana 54.3
Ryan Dempster 48.1
Cole Hamels 48.0
Jake Peavy 47.9
Dan Haren 47.4
Ben Sheets 46.6
Chad Billingsley 45.3
Brandon Webb 44.2
C.C. Sabathia 38.8
That does illustrate how great Sabathia's been - he's accumulated more value (according to VORP) than all but 9 other pitchers, despite roughly 15 games less than pitchers that have pitched the entire year. VORP for pitchers is based off how many runs the pitcher has prevented over replacement level. As you can see, Webb is #9 in the league, and he's probably the runaway Cy favorite because of the mighty "Win". Webb's one of my favorite pitchers, but I have to admit, once you look past wins, he's in a cluster of the top pitchers this year, but isn't the clear-cut favorite, as he's likely to be in the voting. Lincecum is a step ahead of the pack by nearly any measure.
ERA+, Lincecum leads with 177, a full 25 points ahead of second place, in which Johan Santana and Ryan Dempster are tied. He has 30+ more strikeouts than the next highest. He's allowing the second fewest hits per 9 innings (7.24, just a tad behind Dempster with 7.23). He's got the highest winning percentage at .833. Second place is Volquez at 7.62. Lincecum's season has been filthy, but obscure because the Giants aren't good. Lincecum has a combined 12 losses and no-decisions. In those starts, he has a 3.32 ERA. Give him a solid offense behind him, and he very well could have 20 wins already. Because his team sucks, he isn't going to get the consideration he deserves.
they could just give both cy's to CC :DQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Now that'd be something, but I'd bet there's probably some type of rule that would prevent it.
I don't know if there's any rule specifically regarding that, and I'm pretty sure wassit was joking around, but if that happened, that'd be horrible, because C.C.'s AL stats are nothing compared to the top contenders for the AL Cy.
I know. I wasn't regarding it as a feasible or likely scenario.
Lincecum should get it. he leads the NL in 2 of the triple crown categories.
I actually would put Lincecum first, as well, with Webb second.
I dunno. "Value" implies cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Two players with identical stats don't have equal value if one makes $380,000 a year and one makes $380,000,000.
NOT saying a player's salary should be factored into the MVP vote.
When I say value, I'm speaking in terms of production...which I thought was obvious. Value = run production / run prevention.
EXCELENT point and if he was on a good team he would DEFINATLY have the wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
I wouldn't be surprised if Dempster sneaks into this raceQuote:
It's between Lincecum, Santana, and Webb,
True...he's a little behind on innings, but a strong September could put him squarely in the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reade