Your opinions on Award winners？

[El Nino]

So I just finished a season, and before awards come out I go to manual award voting and checked computer's decision. Its decision regarding AL MVP and Cy Young surprises me and I would love to hear your opinions on the matter.
AL MVP:
https://imgur.com/vSqmv7v
The computer select Rowdy Tellez to be the winner, Aaron Judge to be the runner-up and Josh Donaldson comes in third.
Tellez primarily played (120 games) as DH, spend the rest of time playing 1B, so his WAR is affected a bit. He did break all-time rookie HR and RBI record and it would be great to have him win MVP also, but still I think his lack of contribution defensively should prevent him from winning.
Machado, as you can see, had a monstrous season. He would be my top pick. He had a great lead in WAR despite missing around a month of action. Does this and/or Orioles' poor performance (67-95) as a whole kept him away from computer's top 3?
AL Cy Young:
https://i.imgur.com/XM70Fs1.jpg
The computer choose Andrew Miller to win, Joe Biagini to be the runner-up and Aroldis Chapman third. As you can see, most (or maybe I should all) AL SPs had mediocre seasons. None really stands out except Joe Biagini, who wasn't actually amazing either. I wonder would this justify an elite closer win Cy Young. Miller blew only one save and Chapman blew 3 , all coming in a tough week. They both had a good year and Miller is clearly (I hope?) the better of the two. Still, they are not close Britton's performance in real life last year and since Britton did not win, should they?

I would love to hear your opinion on this, also just any general award voting rule of thumb would be appreciated. I could supply any further stats on demand.

[The Game]

no problem with either Tellez or Miller for me

[Cobby]

I think it would be a travesty if Machado didn't win the MVP. He had a monster season and a 4.5 win advantage over Tellez in WAR is huge. Machado produced only 1.4 WAR less than Tellez and Judge combined and if you scaled his season to equal the same number of games as Tellez and Judge combined, he's only 0.3 WAR short. I think the AI is over-valuing HR's in this case.

The pitchers are not quite so clear-cut.

Fulmer is an interesting case. Despite his high ERA, he lead all of the other starters in FIP and WAR. He struck out a bunch and hardly walked anyone and kept the ball in the park. But he gave up too many hits and his WHIP is the worst of everyone on the list.

Miller was utterly dominant, but a closer just doesn't pitch enough to be as valuable as even a mediocre starter in my mind. That 4.3 difference in WAR looms large.

Stroman and Archer were next best in WAR and had nearly identical seasons to each other. But their WHIPs were also on the high side.

Biagini kept people off the bases nearly as well as the closers did, but his 4.4 WAR is a little puny.

I think the decision comes down to how much you value dominance (Miller) or overall contribution (Fulmer) or some combination of the two.

What I really want to do on this one is abstain. OK. I'm voting for Fulmer... no Miller! ... no Biagini! No, I'm going to flip a coin, heads Stroman, tails Archer. Wait a minute. I can't decide between Stroman and Archer, so I'm ruling them out.... OK. OK. It's Miller. Nah it can't be a closer with only 2.3 WAR. OK then. Fulmer! But he keeps getting hammered.... The league's hitting .285 against him and his ERA is over 4.00! You're going to give the Cy Young to someone with a 4.20 ERA? OK then, Biagini. Compromise solution. Good WHIP, decent ERA. But only 4.2 WAR? Fulmer was over two wins more productive! OK. Are you a traditionalist of a sabermetric guy? Do you believe in WAR? (yes). OK, then it has to be Fulmer. Hold your nose. OK. Fulmer.

[NoOne]

that's a ridiculout decision for the MVP, but it'd be tough for me to give the cy young for 65IP, there's not a steller SP season but quite a few contenders, nonetheless.

biagini or whatever, i'd go with... devinski had a low whip and good k and bb rates. but hr rate was a bit high.

i look at awards and 100% based on results, including whatever luck they had that year, good or bad... i don't 'normalize' for those things in my head. this is mostly the opposite of how i evaluate players... funny stuff... and why i don't put any stock into awards.

i do make a change or two on occasion after asking computer for the award winners.. ootp and i have some differences of opinions, imagine that.

[Danius]

Originally Posted by Cobby

What I really want to do on this one is abstain. OK. I'm voting for Fulmer... no Miller! ... no Biagini! No, I'm going to flip a coin, heads Stroman, tails Archer. Wait a minute. I can't decide between Stroman and Archer, so I'm ruling them out.... OK. OK. It's Miller. Nah it can't be a closer with only 2.3 WAR. OK then. Fulmer! But he keeps getting hammered.... The league's hitting .285 against him and his ERA is over 4.00! You're going to give the Cy Young to someone with a 4.20 ERA? OK then, Biagini. Compromise solution. Good WHIP, decent ERA. But only 4.2 WAR? Fulmer was over two wins more productive! OK. Are you a traditionalist of a sabermetric guy? Do you believe in WAR? (yes). OK, then it has to be Fulmer. Hold your nose. OK. Fulmer.

This is a clear case of why WAR (especially Fangraphs' WAR, which I am pretty sure OOTP uses) is an absolute joke. Fulmer went 11-8 with a 4.20 ERA, 1.36 WHIP., and .285 BAA. Those are pretty close to average numbers for a #3 starter in MLB (ERA is actually high for a #3). I realize it was a down year for pitching in the league, but it was not near bad enough to make any kind of a case for Fulmer. His numbers in those categories are by far the worst among any of the contenders. I'd have to go with Biagini based on non-Sabermetric numbers, since the Sabermetrics make no sense.

As for MVP, homeruns and RBI's are overvalued, but they always have been in MLB history. It's odd how the selection of Cy Young looks to be driven by WAR alone, yet the most obvious MVP candidate has the highest WAR, and didn't even finish in the top 3. While I do think Machado's numbers prove he probably deserves it, it isn't a landslide. I'd have Machado and Kepler 1-2, despite their poor RBI numbers (could be that their teams weren't very good). Looking at the Sabermetrics, Machado was extremely lucky, with a .401 BABIP, so maybe he loses points for that in the AI evaluation. I bet team record also reduces his value quite a bit.

[Cobby]

Originally Posted by Danius

This is a clear case of why WAR (especially Fangraphs' WAR, which I am pretty sure OOTP uses) is an absolute joke.

Ha! For some reason, a certain song by Edwin Starr has started going through my mind. (Good God, Y'all)

Yeah, if you rule out the closers based on limited innings then you really aren't left with any good candidates.

Fulmer had the highest ERA of those starters but the lowest FIP. That's odd don't you think?. It means he was extremely unlucky or the fielders behind him were basically tree stumps. With a little luck, and/or decent fielders, his inflated ERA, WHIP and OAVG would be back down to levels we'd feel more comfortable with. If his ERA matched his 2.91 FIP, we wouldn't have much trouble giving him the Cy Young.

So do you penalize him for bad luck and poor fielding, reasoning that it's results that count? Maybe. Or do you go with what FIP and WAR are indicating and posit that he really was the best of that group despite the dubious ERA and give it to him based on that? Maybe.

I don't think there's any absolutely correct approach either way. For that matter, I wouldn't fret much if Miller got it in a case like this.

But I do think that whatever one thinks about sabermetric statistics, at least they can spark a debate occasionally and give us a little more insight. After all, without FIP and WAR, there's no way I would have even consided Fulmer in this case. Now at least, I have a few more tools at my disposal.

As for the Cy Young, another way to look at it is ask who you would want starting for your team in a critical game (based on the information we have available). For me, it's Fulmer - especially since I've got great fielders on my team....

[Marsupilami]

Machado was clearly the best player. for mvp, aside from overvaluing HRs , i dont know if things like playoff team or no are taken into it

[Danius]

Originally Posted by Cobby

Fulmer had the highest ERA of those starters but the lowest FIP. That's odd don't you think?. It means he was extremely unlucky or the fielders behind him were basically tree stumps. With a little luck, and/or decent fielders, his inflated ERA, WHIP and OAVG would be back down to levels we'd feel more comfortable with. If his ERA matched his 2.91 FIP, we wouldn't have much trouble giving him the Cy Young.

The problem with FIP is that it doesn't take into account how hard balls are hit when they are hit. My guess is that Fulmer got hit hard when he did get hit, whereas some other Cy Young Award candidate(s) had plenty of groundballs that squeaked through the infield, and thus did not end in two- or three-base advances by any player on base, thus keeping the ERA in check. Fulmer also pitches in Detroit half the time, which is among the hardest parks to hit a homerun in, and HR allowed weighs heavily against FIP. FIP also relies heavily on strikeouts. I realize that in most cases, a strikeout pitcher is most likely going to allow less base hits, because less balls are put in play, but that isn't always the case. Jeff Samardzija and former players like Kerry Wood (late in his career) struck out plenty, but to some extent, they are/were "effectively wild", and they threw/throw hard. Usually, when they got/get hit, it was hard, because the location was/is off, and the pitch was/is right down the middle. FIP would have you believe that Jeff Samardzija is having a season comparable to an average year from Greg Maddux, and that couldn't be further from the truth.