Award thoughts

[sc_superstar]

So I was wondering others thoughts on a pitcher winning a cy young with his season cut short due to injury, but he was insanely dominant before the injury.

Since he does pitch deep into games, he will qualify despite only pitching 23 games because he put up 164.1 IP he will win the ERA crown and finish 1st in ERA, W%, K/BB and FIP, 4th in CG, T-2nd in SO 2nd BB/9 3rd in WHIP 3rd in OBP against and 2nd in OPS against and 2nd in WAR

13-4 2.52 ERA 164.1 IP 7.34 K/9 1.15 BB/9 1.08 WHIP 2.92 FIP 78.3 QS% 5.2 WAR

other award contenders:

#1) 16-6 2.70 ERA 193.2 IP 7.11 K/9 1.63 BB/9 1.04 WHIP 3.74 FIP 59.4 QS% 4.1 WAR
#2) 17-8 3.30 ERA 229.1 IP 6.79 K/9 1.14 BB/9 1.16 WHIP 3.42 FIP 58.8 QS% 5.8 WAR
#3) 12-9 3.72 ERA 188.2IP 10.02K/9 1.77 BB/9 1.14 WHIP 3.33 FIP 60 QS% 5.0 WAR
#4) 18-8 3.83 ERA 246.2IP 5.51 K/9 1.20 BB/9 1.16 WHIP 4.05 FIP 48.5 QS% 4.2 WAR
#5) 11-5 3.24 ERA 194.1IP 8.89 K/9 3.01 BB/9 1.24 WHIP 3.53 FIP 71 QS% 4.6 WAR

If you had to pick between the injured guy or one of the other 5 who would you choose and why? i'll be happy to share any other stats.

Seems like all 6 have reasons not to vote for them

(interesting fact 3 of the 6 are teammates)

[darkcloud4579]

I can see giving it to the injured guy, but honestly, those other dudes pitched a lot more than he did and it's not their fault they didn't get hurt and could be judged on half a resume.

#2, #3 and maybe your injured guy at #3 as recognition of how dominant his year was. When I pick award winners, it's usually based on an approximation of how real voters vote, rather than solely on stats anyway.

[The Game]

I had that in my IBL league also. Escobar was so dominant, the fact that he missed the last 45 or so days of the season didnt matter.

[r0nster]

alot of them stats stated by OP (original poster) makes little sense to me I prefer old school stats before I pick who should win. for that tells me ALOT more than what I see there

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by r0nster

alot of them stats stated by OP (original poster) makes little sense to me I prefer old school stats before I pick who should win. for that tells me ALOT more than what I see there

Wins, losses, innings pitched and ERA seem like pretty "old school" stats to me.

[sc_superstar]

What stats did you want to see?

[r0nster]

7.11 K/9 1.63 BB/9 1.04 WHIP 3.74 FIP 59.4 QS% 4.1 WAR




that stuff is what I am talking about

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by r0nster

7.11 K/9 1.63 BB/9 1.04 WHIP 3.74 FIP 59.4 QS% 4.1 WAR




that stuff is what I am talking about

Well the first two aren't telling you anything different than if you looked at a guy's innings pitched in relation to his strikeouts or walks which are pretty "old school" stats. "WHIP" isn't exactly a "new age" stat since I was using it back when I played Strat-O-Matic in the 1980's. Which stats are left out that are going to give you this information you seem to need? Complete games? Shutouts?

[r0nster]

I could careless about k/9 innings bit I care more about the actual numbers not the other stuff and yes WHIP been around a while as has the others but they never meant much until relatively recently. I have seen on here WAR people value that highly ... to me all it shows he had a decent year. I like stats like that be on a baseball card back in the 50s through 90s ...... bottom line its about preference in what we each value

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by r0nster

I could careless about k/9 innings bit I care more about the actual numbers not the other stuff and yes WHIP been around a while as has the others but they never meant much until relatively recently. I have seen on here WAR people value that highly ... to me all it shows he had a decent year. I like stats like that be on a baseball card back in the 50s through 90s ...... bottom line its about preference in what we each value

I don't agree with the bolded. That's either saying that you have your own facts or that there is no objective way to compare the value of different stats. Using your logic in a hypothetical to show you what I mean, it would be pretty silly for some "old timer" to say he judges Cy Young candidates based upon W-L record, ERA, CG & SHO. That may have been a totally "legitimate" way to judge pitchers 50 years ago. However, I think most people today would agree that's an objectively "inaccurate" way to judge who the best pitcher was.

[jpeters1734]

here's why players that miss a lot of time should not be included on the ballot. There's no way to tell if he would have continued his dominance over the course of the season. Suppose that he completely bombed his second half had he not gotten injured. That stat line would look very different

[sc_superstar]

There is a screengrab of all the stats from the BNN player page, i dont know what else people would want to see, i tried in my original post to grab both old school and "new" school stats

Also, while i understand the whole can he keep it up thing, it is a valid point, I wouldnt worry in this case only because the guy that was injured is the 2-time reigning award winner.

[NoOne]

164 qualifies? or 162? 1ip/game? whatever it is....

they meet this requirement. so they should be on the same level.

whether that is enough is always an open debate, but once it's chosen i don't htink it's fair to discount someone for meeting a pre-defined threshold to qualify for an award.

we aren't monkeys. we can think ahead and avoid the situation. unfortunately we are still all part monkey, so there will never be a threshold that makes all people content on this particular and arbitrary point. arbitrary being the key after any point of common sense choice.

if i see 'similar' #'s @163ip and @200+ip, i will lean toward the higher innings for the reasons hinted at above. it's not about punishment though. it's more evidence of consistency vs luck with a larger sample, ie the truth will out with more innings pitched. they did it longer and equivalently, so they get the edge.

This is borderline... the guys with similar #'s only had ~30ip more. whehter 220s v 250s or 160s v. 190s that's not much to me. the guys with more are a bit worse numbers.

this is definitely a year i would click "ask computer" then go with that one, lol.

too many choices with negligible differences here.

[sc_superstar]

Originally Posted by NoOne

164 qualifies? or 162? 1ip/game? whatever it is....

they meet this requirement. so they should be on the same level.

whether that is enough is always an open debate, but once it's chosen i don't htink it's fair to discount someone for meeting a pre-defined threshold to qualify for an award.

we aren't monkeys. we can think ahead and avoid the situation. unfortunately we are still all part monkey, so there will never be a threshold that makes all people content on this particular and arbitrary point. arbitrary being the key after any point of common sense choice.

if i see 'similar' #'s @163ip and @200+ip, i will lean toward the higher innings for the reasons hinted at above. it's not about punishment though. it's more evidence of consistency vs luck with a larger sample, ie the truth will out with more innings pitched. they did it longer and equivalently, so they get the edge.

This is borderline... the guys with similar #'s only had ~30ip more. whehter 220s v 250s or 160s v. 190s that's not much to me. the guys with more are a bit worse numbers.

this is definitely a year i would click "ask computer" then go with that one, lol.

too many choices with negligible differences here.

It was in an online league, it was voted on manually
#2 Ended up winning,
#4 then #1 were 2nd and 3rd respectively
#3 was tied for 4th with someone not shown
The injured guy finished behind them in 6th
and #5 finished 10th in voting

[NoOne]

#2 is a respectable choice