Award for Relievers?

[Tannhauser]

So Jayson Stark on ESPN is arguing that relievers should get their own special category of awards alongside the Cy Young and the MVP since they do not seem to be getting the attention or the votes necessary to win those awards. The second argument is that the relievers don't seem to fit into any of the current metrics used to quantify importance. No one can agree on WAR values and all that we really have about relievers is saves.

The lack of votes:

We're now up to 17 seasons since A's closer Dennis Eckersley won the 1992 Cy Young and MVP awards in the same year. Since then, only one reliever (Eric Gagne, in his historic 55-for-55 season in 2003) has won a Cy Young. And no reliever has won an MVP award, or even finished in the top three.

In those 17 seasons, just five relievers have even received a first-place vote in the Cy Young balloting -- Gagne, Rivera (1996 and 2005), Trevor Hoffman (2006), Randy Myers (1997) and Jose Mesa (1995).

Likewise, in those 17 seasons, only three relievers have even finished as the Cy Young runner-up -- Hoffman (2006), Rivera (2005) and Mesa (1995).

Meanwhile, over in the MVP voting, we've had just 10 top-10 finishes -- and only two top-five finishes (both by Mesa, believe it or not) -- by any relievers in the past 17 elections. And the last of those top-five finishes was 15 years ago.

Of the exactly 1,000 first-place MVP votes cast in that time, precisely four have gone to a relief pitcher -- two to Brad Lidge in 2008, one to Francisco Rodriguez in 2008 and one to Mesa in '95. And that's all, folks.

The lack of metrics to quantify relievers:

It isn't only every October that voters aren't sure how to measure relief pitchers. It's all the time. Twelve months a year. 24/7.

And for good reason. What tools do we actually have to evaluate these guys? The save is the most overrated stat in baseball. And the Rolaids Award is gurgitated out of a computer based only on a mathematical formula, driven by (what else?) saves.

Full text is HERE.

[metsguy234]

http://www.rolaidsreliefman.com/

[dickay]

they are relievers because they aren't good enough to be starters. they shouldn't try to glorify it anymore than they already do. next we'll be talking about an award for the best bench hitter.

[metsguy234]

they are relievers because they aren't good enough to be starters. they shouldn't try to glorify it anymore than they already do. next we'll be talking about an award for the best bench hitter.

There's already an award for best DH, so there should be one for best pinch hitter.

[dickay]

There's already an award for best DH, so there should be one for best pinch hitter.

and best bullpen catcher while we're at it

[Tannhauser]

Let's consider this . . . the standard team in the majors has roughly 12 slots for their pitchers. Of these, 7 of them are for relievers. Shouldn't players who represent roughly 1/3 of your standard major league roster get the respect they deserve?

[OregonDuck1989]

and best bullpen catcher while we're at it

[HoustonGM]

Let's consider this . . . the standard team in the majors has roughly 12 slots for their pitchers. Of these, 7 of them are for relievers. Shouldn't players who represent roughly 1/3 of your standard major league roster get the respect they deserve?

I don't really care if they get an award or not, but just because they take him 1/3 of the roster doesn't mean they're all that valuable compared to position players and starting pitchers. Only one or two of those relievers actually get used in high leverage situations on a consistent basis. Their "lack of votes" in the MVP and Cy Young votes is deserved - 60-70 innings just is not all that valuable.

[boomboom]

Their "lack of votes" in the MVP and Cy Young votes is deserved - 60-70 innings just is not all that valuable.

I agree. I really don't care for the MVP, and the Cy Young, these awards do not matter to the team. All that matters is wins and losses. There performance matters not awards.

[Tannhauser]

I don't really care if they get an award or not, but just because they take him 1/3 of the roster doesn't mean they're all that valuable compared to position players and starting pitchers. Only one or two of those relievers actually get used in high leverage situations on a consistent basis. Their "lack of votes" in the MVP and Cy Young votes is deserved - 60-70 innings just is not all that valuable.

Given the situation in this past playoff where seemingly plenty of top notch closers blew and lost games to walkoffs, how would you value a great closer who is virtually automatic?

---

Mind you, as a Yankee fan, as long as Mariano Rivera is the closer, I don't give a bleep about whether relievers get more recognition beyond what the Rolaids awards.

[free2131]

Sure, why not. Would that make relievers ineligible for the Cy Young, also?

they are relievers because they aren't good enough to be starters. they shouldn't try to glorify it anymore than they already do. next we'll be talking about an award for the best bench hitter.

Well, the NBA has the 6th man award, so why not one for an outstanding sub in baseball?

[JustPats]

Sure, why not. Would that make relievers ineligible for the Cy Young, also?

It shouldn't. Cy Young winners aren't ineligible for the MVP. Cy Young is a subset of the MVP voting. Best reliever is a subset of the Cy Young. How about we all vote and call it the Baseball Mogul Fireman Award.

[ragecage]

Well, they do give the Rolaids Reliever of the Year award.

[200tang]

Well, they do give the Rolaids Reliever of the Year award.

This. Isn't this enough? I really don't think we need another useless award to drive up player salaries. We've already got manager of the year among others.

[free2131]

Dan Kolb should have won the Rolaids Reliever of the Year in 2005. Hell, there wasn't a game he was in that year that I didn't need antacid for...

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week, and remember to tip your waitress.