deGrom for NOT Cy Young (and other awards (with 5 days left))

When it comes to baseball awards, I may be running an irregular "Get Off My Lawn" baseball blog here.  Haven't posted in quite a while (and just deleted a Post I'd begun writing last September about my Indians, but had never published...), but I have a tendency to come on here and say ugly things about the people who do all the talking and voting.

For example, ESPN talking heads are, once again, selling deGrom for the NL Cy Young.

And, what ESPN sells, they get.  They got it last year, and deGrom didn't deserve it.

Yes, I'm "old school", but not completely.  While I think there's good value in WAR for position players (although I'd consider the numbers for 1B broken, at least partly), I think WAR for pitchers is severely broken.  Any time you take a guy like deGrom and tell me he has a WAR of 9.6, but won only 10 games for a team that was 77-85... you're selling me land in the swamps.  That 77-85 record, by the way, is significantly better than the 59-97 team that Steve Carlton pitched for back when he won 27 games for the 1972 Phillies... and deservedly won the Cy Young award.  

Now we have the talking heads (the same people who keep talking about how boring baseball is, so how in the heck are they getting paid for covering the greatest game in the history of the world?!?!?!?!?!... [deep breaths]... okay) pushing to give the Cy Young to this guy again.  He would have 20 wins... OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS.

Pathetic.

Personally, I would throw out the WAR number for pitchers, and choose someone who makes more sense.  

When it comes to the AL, things get far more interesting.  The same goobers who keep talking deGrom (because of pitcher WAR) are ignoring two Rangers who have higher pitcher WAR than Cole--Mike Minor and Lance Lynn, the alliterative pitchers of Texas.  Cole comes in 4th.  

I'd vote Verlander, although I'd be likely to put Cole in a close 2nd.

Rookie of the year seems obvious in both leagues--Alonso in the NL, Alvarez (who has played half a season) in the AL.  Maybe I'll dig around on this sometime later.  But for now that's what I'd write.

Biggest disappointment: The Indians.  
Biggest surprise: The Twins.
Biggest nuisance: The Twins.
Biggest irritation: The Twins.
Biggest pain in my back side: The Twins.

You get the idea.

MVP?  Sheesh.  This is painful.  I am a Mike Trout fan.  Enjoyed tracking him on BaseballReference.com all year... until mid-September.  SO disappointing.  And, since he went for surgery midway through the month, he may lose the MVP which was easily in his grasp.  I hear some talking about voting Trout anyway, because he is still the best player in baseball.  I can understand that, and almost hope he wins.  He should have 4 or 5 by now, but some people thought other players of lesser value were better than him in the last several years (and, with the exception of Betts last year, none were).  

I think I'd vote Bregman.  It would be easy to argue Trout as the most valuable, and, as of this moment, he still has the higher WAR, but part of value is staying on the field.  With that in mind, I think Bregman should win.

In the NL, the same thing could be said to bump the best player in the NL from winning for the second year in a row.  I think the award was his until he also went out for the year--Yelich.  SUCH a tremendous year... and then he ends up playing in only 130 games.  I'd vote for Bellinger, even though he is from the loathsome Dodgers, who I hope lose in 3 straight in the first round.  I don't think any other player comes close.  And I will never endorse a pitcher, unless he pitches in at least 125 games.

My favorite baseball stat is, and probably always has been, doubles.  

This year's leader may still get to 60, which would be awesome.  I would love that.  I would look for a bobblehead of Castellanos, or at least a baseball card, to put on my shelf if he pulled that off.  As it is, he already has the 10th best single season number of doubles in the history of MLB--58.  If he hits one more, he ends up tied with 3 other guys for 7th best all time--Todd Helton (loved that guy), Chuck Klein (whatev), and Tris Speaker--who hit his 59 in his age 35 season.  What a stud.

Fun stuff--60 doubles.  Get 'er done!

Honorable mention goes to the Boston Red Sox--for having 2 guys with 50+ doubles, and two more guys with 40+ doubles!  

GO INDIANS!

Kershaw is great, but enough with the GOAT

Let me get this straight from the start--I really like Kershaw.  I admire him.  He's a great pitcher.  One of the best of today's game.

Now, I'll blast the talking heads.  HE ISN'T THE GREATEST EVER.

Here's the thing--historically we've always considered innings eating as one of the essentials of a "best ever" type of pitcher.  Clayton pitched 7 innings last night.  That's fairly normal for pitchers today, but the Greatest Ever has to go to pitchers who aren't "fairly normal."  

Quick look.  Bob Gibson in World Series games.

Year	Age	Tm	Lg	Series	Rslt	Opp	W	L	W-L%	ERA	G	GS	GF	CG	SHO	SV	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	IBB	SO	HBP	BK	WP	BF	WHIP	H9	HR9	BB9	SO9	SO/W
1964 MVP	28	STL	NL	WS	W	NYY	2	1	.667	3.00	3	3	0	2	0	0	27.0	23	11	9	4	8	2	31	2	0	1	113	1.148	7.7	1.3	2.7	10.3	3.88
1967 MVP	31	STL	NL	WS	W	BOS	3	0	1.000	1.00	3	3	0	3	1	0	27.0	14	3	3	1	5	0	26	0	0	1	98	0.704	4.7	0.3	1.7	8.7	5.20
1968	32	STL	NL	WS	L	DET	2	1	.667	1.67	3	3	0	3	1	0	27.0	18	5	5	1	4	1	35	0	0	0	101	0.815	6.0	0.3	1.3	11.7	8.75
3 Yrs (3 Series)							7	2	.778	1.89	9	9	0	8	2	0	81.0	55	19	17	6	17	3	92	2	0	2	312	0.889	6.1	0.7	1.9	10.2	5.41
3 WS							7	2	.778	1.89	9	9	0	8	2	0	81.0	55	19	17	6	17	3	92	2	0	2	312	0.889	6.1	0.7	1.9	10.2	5.41

Note: Bob Gibson, one of the historic monsters of Stare Down pitching, pitched 8 complete games out of 9 starts.  All in all, he pitched 9 innings per game.  

Bob Gibson is ahead of Clayton Kershaw on the "Best Ever" lists in my opinion.  

Tom Seaver averaged more than 7 innings per post season game.  Overall ERA for those series was 2.77, 3 W's, 3 L's, 8 starts.

Greg Maddux.  11 W's, 14 L's, 3.27 ERA, 30 post season starts.

Nolan Ryan.  2 W's, 2 L's, 3.07 ERA, 63 K's in 58.2 IP.

Steve Carlton.  6 W's, 6 L's, 3.26 ERA, 14 post season starts.

Randy Johnson.  7 W's, 9 L's, 3.50 ERA, 16 post season starts.  132 K's in 121 IP.

These are all historic great pitchers.  All with mediocre post season records.

Now let's look at Curt Schilling, the one cast out by ESPN because they are a purely liberal political organization.

Curt.  11 W's, 2 L's, 19 starts, 19 games pitches, 4 complete games (not a lot compared to the old timers), 2.23 ERA.  

Nice!

Now, one to whom Clayton is often compared.

Sandy Koufax.  4 W's, 3 L's.  That's fairly normal.  0.95 ERA.  I'm going to write that again, to help you see that it wasn't a typo.  0.95 ERA.  0.95 ERA.  8 games started, 4 complete games.

Now, Clayton.

7 W's, 7 L's, 4.21 ERA.  What?  

18 starts, 22 games overall.  113.1 innings pitched.  So... that's an average of just over 5 innings per game pitched.  

Not a best ever.

However, Clayton does have the distinction of being the only player in the history of MLB to win the MVP award after having been in only 1/6th of his team's games.

There ya go.

The Long Ball

I just finished reading (that is, listening to) a book about the 1975 season:

"The Long Ball: The Summer of '75 -- Spaceman, Catfish, Charlie Hustle, and the Greatest World Series Ever Played"

1975 was the year that I fell in love with baseball. My family and I lived in a suburb of Cleveland at the time, so I was initiated into baseball fandom as a Cleveland Indians fan, but my grandparents, who lived in Columbus, were Reds fans. Their fandom rubbed off on me somewhere along the way, perhaps, or I was simply an Ohio fan.

At any rate, I played 2nd base, so two of my favorite players were Cleveland's Duane Kuiper and Cincinnati's Joe Morgan.

We were visiting my grandparents in Columbus while the Reds were playing the Red Sox that fall. My brothers and I got to see the twitchy batting stance of Morgan, the bizzare wind up of Luis Tiant, and the glorious energy of Pete Rose.

What a great year.

The book begins before the season and ends after it, telling lots of little stories along the way. We get glimpses of McNally's difficulties in Montreal and his sudden retirement, Catfish Hunter's free agency, Johnny Bench's preseason wedding (and post season divorce), asides about future famous people like M. C. Hammer and Ricky Henderson, and more.

It is a fun read for any long time baseball fan.

Indians Fans = Imbecilic Rioters???

I'm a lifelong Indians fan.

The mid 90s were great years. Our management was intent on bringing a champion to Cleveland. Mike Hargrove managed a tremendously talented team of power and speed. It was wonderful.

In '95 we lost to the best team of the decade.  The Braves lost most of their World Series appearances, but they won against us.

In '97, though, we lost against a clearly inferior team. The Florida Marlins had spiked at the right time, carrying them from wild card to champs.

The name of Jose Mesa still makes me shiver.  But he did help get us to the big dance.

Then, many more years of tiny, if any, hopes. Three Cy Young winners later, two of which bolted immediately thereafter, there we were in another World Series, due, in large part, to the brilliant leaderahip of Terry Francona.

Up three games to one, I had the idiotic decency to hope the Cubs could win game 5, at home, for their fans.

Then, they did.

I don't blame myself. Nor do I blame Jose Mesa or Ernst Byner.

Congratulations to the Cubs. I'm happy for you. Briefly.

But don't expect me to be happy for you for long. I know Cubs fans are pitied by many. More of their fans this year appeared to be nothing more than bandwagon fans, joining the chorus only because the team was doing so well. But the True fans, some of whom are relatives and friends of mine, I am happy for.

But enough of the pity. Honestly, any Cubs fan who wasn't a fan in 1945 has NO IDEA the pain felt by Indians fans.  They've NEVER lost a World Series. Many of we true Indians fans have lost 3.  You'll get none of my pity.

Now, to the point.

There's an absurd, politically pointed comic online in the last few days. The point of it is to point out the absurdity of the whining, destructive, imbecilic thugs who are rioting and destroying both public and private property in protest of their felonious, treasonous candidate's election loss. 

Please, do not compare Indians Fans to those godless, spoiled cretans.

Thank you,

M

Oddities as of September 24th (primarily due to the dominance of the NL Central)

No, this isn't a post about Yogi Berra.  He was one of the game's all time greats, and his wit will be missed.

Oddities.  

1. The Kansas City Royals are currently the best team in the AL.  If they were in the NL Central, they would be in 4th place.  Realize this--that means they wouldn't even make it into the NL wild card game.
2. One of the top three teams in MLB through the regular season will be out of the playoffs after the initial NL wild card game.
3. The Yankees, who were not picked by many folks to make it this far, have a good grip on the AL 1st wild card.  
4. The Astros... have the 2nd AL wild card currently, but could easily be overcome by either the Twins (picked by almost nobody) and/or the Angels (who were expected to win the AL West... which is led by the Texas Rangers... who pretty much nobody picked).
5. The Mariners, a popular pick to make it to the World Series, are 5.5 games back in the race for the 2nd wild card.  They are not mathematically eliminated, but there's no way they will get close to winning.
6. The Nationals, an almost universally picked team to win the NL, are 10.5 games back in the race for the 2nd NL wild card.  They have played 151 games.  11 to go.  They are probably going to be mathematically eliminated today.
7. The Cubs, the Lovable Loser Cubs, are 89 - 63, have pretty good lock on the 2nd wild card spot.  The Giants, happily not heading for the playoffs (it is an even year, after all), are 9.5 games back in the wild card race.  It would take a historically brilliant collapse by the Cubs (or Pirates) and a historically tremendous run by the Giants to make alter this.  Not happening.  These Cubs are for real.
8. If the NL Central were a team, they would be in
1. 3rd in the AL East
2. 2nd in the AL Central
3. 2nd in the AL West
4. 2nd in the NL East
5. 4th in the NL Central (circular reasoning?)
6. 2nd in the NL West
9. Nobody sucks as bad as the Phillies.  They are probably going to get 100 L's for the year.  Still, they are a mere 28 games back of first place in their division.  The Brewers and Reds are 32 and 32.5 games back in theirs.  Of course, the Brewers and Reds are in the NL Central.  If they were in the NL East, they'd displace both the Braves and the Phillies.
10. These ten items are not in any special order--just the order in which I wrote them.  Also, my Cleveland Indians are in no special order, but doing better than most Cleveland fans expected them to be after seeing that Sports Illustrated put them on their cover.

So there you go.

Why Kershaw shouldn't have been MVP

Kershaw had a tremendous year.  He well-deserved the Cy Young award, though he pitched in less games than every other pitcher who had votes.  Phenomenal year.  That being said... he didn't deserve the MVP award.  

First, the exceptionally easy part--because he only played in 28 freaking games.

That is the easiest, most reasonable answer there is.  He played in 17.284% of his team's games.  Tell me how that was MVP-able.  How many Dodgers contributed in more games than Kershaw did?  15 position players, 7 relief pitchers, and 2 starting pitchers.

Oops.  Wait a minute.  I was wrong on the 28 games.  According to Baseballreference.com, he only played in 27.  That's 16.6667% of the team's games.

Not very MVP-able.

Innings played?  I'm working on the numbers now, but innings played for the regular players isn't something I'm going to catch exactly.  I'll see how close I can get to real data on that without paying for services, but I'd bet he didn't play the most innings in his 28 games, nor 2nd or 3rd or 4th or 5th most innings during those games.  After all, pitchers need relieved.  He only played a whole game 6 times all year.  Eleven regular players played more complete games in Kershaw's 27 games than he did.  Most of those more than doubled him.

So, not only did he play 1/6th of his teams games, but he didn't even play all of most of those individual games.

Here are the players who played more of Kershaw's games from beginning to end:

Kemp	24
Gonzalez	22
Gordon	22
Puig	21
Ellis	20
Crawford	12
Uribe	12
Ethier	10
Van Slyke	9
Ramirez	7
Turner	7

As you can see, even some scrubs played whole games during Kershaw's games more than he did.

What else happened in Kershaw games?  Here are the leaders for a few categories:

Runs - Ramirez, with 18

Hits - Kemp, with 29

RBIs - Kemp, with 18

Walks - Ellis, with 15

Batting Average (minimum 3.1 x 27 plate appearances, which is 83.7) - Kemp, .326.  

On Base Pct (same minimums) - Kemp, .394

By the way, four other batters had higher batting averages in Kershaw-pitched games:

Crawford, .407, 55 plate appearances

Ethier, .378, 49 pa's

Turner, .353, 37 pa's

Ramirez, .329, 82 pa's--just 1.7 too few to count as the leader
Oh, by the way, Kershaw had 67 plate appearances during his 27 games played.

It is a little shocking to read Kemp's name so frequently, knowing that they dumped him within their own division during the off-season.  That ought to make things interesting when the Padres come to town, eh?

It seems like Kemp may have been the MVP of Kershaw pitched games, really.  Maybe Kershaw will buy him a car.