MLB Offseason 2016-17

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:50 am

Pretty great bounceback year for Verlander to be in the final three in CY Young voting.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:04 am

Reeeeeeeally wish they'd gone with Fernandez for NL Cy.

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Tue Nov 15, 2016 8:29 pm

Post by **brian** » Tue Nov 15, 2016 8:44 pm

Porcello winning AL Cy would make me wonder if voters really still value wins as a stat. Kluber and Verlander have pretty similar stats but think it's easily 1A/1B/3 amongst those guys. (I think Kluber will win and that would be OK.)

bfj · Post by **bfj** » Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:23 pm

I don't think he should win, but how does a closer who goes 47/47 in save opportunities, has a .054 ERA and a .83 WHIP not even get considered as a finalist for the Cy Young?

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:42 pm

Exact same way Fulmer won the RoY?

EnochRoot · Post by **EnochRoot** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:39 am

mister d wrote:Exact same way Fulmer won the RoY?

Eh...Sanchez played 1/3 of the season. Britton kicked ass in high leverage situations all season long.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:27 am

Britton pitched 1/3 of a starter's workload.

(And from a pure value standpoint, if you tell Baltimore they can have a guarantee of one of Kluber/Porcello/Verlander's seasons for 2017 or a repeat Britton's and they'd backfill the other, which one do you think they're taking?)

EnochRoot · Post by **EnochRoot** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 10:03 am

mister d wrote:Britton pitched 1/3 of a starter's workload.

(And from a pure value standpoint, if you tell Baltimore they can have a guarantee of one of Kluber/Porcello/Verlander's seasons for 2017 or a repeat Britton's and they'd backfill the other, which one do you think they're taking?)

I'm not sure how, in terms of an award, work accomplished equates to value to a team going forward; and in this instance in particular due to the state of the Orioles rotation.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 10:36 am

The average closer saved 87% of his chances. Assuming you lose all of those games (which isn't the case in reality), the average closer blows 6 of those games and the Orioles lose them.

But, you take Ubaldo Jimenez out back and shoot him and replace him with Corey Kluber. You're probably adding a lot more than 6 wins to your season.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 10:47 am

Gunpowder wrote:The average closer saved 87% of his chances. Assuming you lose all of those games (which isn't the case in reality), the average closer blows 6 of those games and the Orioles lose them.

But, you take Ubaldo Jimenez out back and shoot him and replace him with Corey Kluber. You're probably adding a lot more than 6 wins to your season.

Not that it matters to this conversation (and don't mean to threadjack), but that makes me muse on what kind of a season the Giants might have had, if their closers had saved 87% of their chances. That blown lead in the last game against the Cubs was emblematic of their season.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 10:59 am

Baltimore was 75-0 leading after 8 innings, league average was 95.8%. Drop them all the way to league average and its a 3 game swing. (But, simply add one or two BS to Britton's season and no one would put him in the argument, right?)

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 11:01 am

Gunpowder wrote:The average closer saved 87% of his chances. Assuming you lose all of those games (which isn't the case in reality), the average closer blows 6 of those games and the Orioles lose them.

But, you take Ubaldo Jimenez out back and shoot him and replace him with Corey Kluber. You're probably adding a lot more than 6 wins to your season.

Baseball Reference gives Kluber 6.4 WAR.

Closers fall in between when it comes to these awards. It seems to me that given their role, they should be considered for MVP rather than Cy Young. But even then, you have to balance out someone who makes 50 appearances but all are high leverage versus someone who gets 700 plate appearances, most of which don't really matter.

I know that looking at WPA has problems because it is based on a team's quality - but if there was a way to measure what the WPA would be with an average team, or in typical situations, you could get a good comparison between what a starter brings and what a reliever brings.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 11:09 am

Even then ... make Kluber or like 50 other starters a reliever. That part should almost be a disqualifier in head to head awards no matter how good the reliever was.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 3:40 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:
Gunpowder wrote:The average closer saved 87% of his chances. Assuming you lose all of those games (which isn't the case in reality), the average closer blows 6 of those games and the Orioles lose them.

But, you take Ubaldo Jimenez out back and shoot him and replace him with Corey Kluber. You're probably adding a lot more than 6 wins to your season.
Baseball Reference gives Kluber 6.4 WAR.

Closers fall in between when it comes to these awards. It seems to me that given their role, they should be considered for MVP rather than Cy Young. But even then, you have to balance out someone who makes 50 appearances but all are high leverage versus someone who gets 700 plate appearances, most of which don't really matter.

I know that looking at WPA has problems because it is based on a team's quality - but if there was a way to measure what the WPA would be with an average team, or in typical situations, you could get a good comparison between what a starter brings and what a reliever brings.

Well, yeah, I'm just replacing Ubaldo Jimenez who is like 100 LAR.

However, with closers, most of their situations start probably around at least 85-90% chance of winning, perhaps even higher. Starters come in around 50%. So I would like to see that.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 3:41 pm

mister d wrote:Baltimore was 75-0 leading after 8 innings, league average was 95.8%. Drop them all the way to league average and its a 3 game swing. (But, simply add one or two BS to Britton's season and no one would put him in the argument, right?)

Better point than mine.

Basically, the win probability added by an average save is probably much lower than most people seem to think.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:30 pm

Gunpowder wrote:
mister d wrote:Baltimore was 75-0 leading after 8 innings, league average was 95.8%. Drop them all the way to league average and its a 3 game swing. (But, simply add one or two BS to Britton's season and no one would put him in the argument, right?)

Better point than mine.

Basically, the win probability added by an average save is probably much lower than most people seem to think.

I agree with that.

One thing about Mister D's stat - presumably that league average includes games where the lead going into the ninth was more than 3 runs. With a 1- or 2-run lead, I assume the odds of winning are somewhat lower than 95.8 percent.

Still, though, I think that general point stands.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:54 pm

Definitely does, but that's semi-offset by Britton sometimes pitching in non-save chances.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:06 pm

I also would think that if Clayton Kershaw throws 7 innings of one-hit ball and leaves down 1-0, his WPA is less than a guy who closes out a 5 run lead in the ninth even though he gives up a 3 run homer.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:19 pm

Gunpowder wrote:I also would think that if Clayton Kershaw throws 7 innings of one-hit ball and leaves down 1-0, his WPA is less than a guy who closes out a 5 run lead in the ninth even though he gives up a 3 run homer.

Sure. That's why I don't think WPA would work unless you somehow assumed average offensive output for the pitcher's team. If Kershaw gives up one run in seven innings, his team "should" score about 3.5 runs, so his earned WPA would be based on having a 3.5-1 lead.

If a guy closes out a 5-run lead in the ninth, that wouldn't be a save situation. I understood that Britton's claim to fame was 47 saves in 47 chances.

To me, the difference in innings pitched is the biggest thing. That is why I am okay if Scherzer gets the Cy Young over Hendricks. Scherzer pitched 38 more innings than Hendricks did. If Kershaw is out of consideration because he pitched 149 innings (41 less than Hendricks), Hendricks has to be docked for pitching 38 IP less than Scherzer.

Post by **brian** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:35 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:
Gunpowder wrote:I also would think that if Clayton Kershaw throws 7 innings of one-hit ball and leaves down 1-0, his WPA is less than a guy who closes out a 5 run lead in the ninth even though he gives up a 3 run homer.
Sure. That's why I don't think WPA would work unless you somehow assumed average offensive output for the pitcher's team. If Kershaw gives up one run in seven innings, his team "should" score about 3.5 runs, so his earned WPA would be based on having a 3.5-1 lead.

If a guy closes out a 5-run lead in the ninth, that wouldn't be a save situation. I understood that Britton's claim to fame was 47 saves in 47 chances.

To me, the difference in innings pitched is the biggest thing. That is why I am okay if Scherzer gets the Cy Young over Hendricks. Scherzer pitched 38 more innings than Hendricks did. If Kershaw is out of consideration because he pitched 149 innings (41 less than Hendricks), Hendricks has to be docked for pitching 38 IP less than Scherzer.

(Personally, despite my bias, this is one of the main reasons why I think Verlander should win over Kluber/Porcello. There's something to be said for eating up innings and doing it at the same level as someone who had the equivalent of four less starts.)

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:08 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:Sure. That's why I don't think WPA would work unless you somehow assumed average offensive output for the pitcher's team.

I'm not sure if its still used, but Runs Saved used to kinda/sorta do that. Replacement R/ER over the total IP minus actual R/ER.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:27 pm

Eh, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:36 pm

I'd like to see verlander get revalidAted.

Post by **brian** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:54 pm

Apparently wins still is a thing. (Less for Porcello and more that two idiots didn't even have Verlander in the top 10).

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:03 pm

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:42 pm

It's a weird and random time for 2000 Pedro retribution but sure what the hell.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:20 pm

Kate Upton is mad. Justin will have to console her later.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 11:54 pm

Damn, her tantrum is sexy.

And this is good too:

Looks like Verlander lost the electoral college. #NotMyCyYoungAwardWinner

rass · Post by **rass** » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:48 am

How did you not include this one?

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:36 am

Oh, rass

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:57 am

Ha, good find Rass!

rass · Post by **rass** » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:45 am

Fuck.

I just threw my phone away. Feel better?

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:14 pm

brian wrote:(Personally, despite my bias, this is one of the main reasons why I think Verlander should win over Kluber/Porcello. There's something to be said for eating up innings and doing it at the same level as someone who had the equivalent of four less starts.)

Only Kluber and Porcello were close to Verlander in my book; Sale is a step behind. The rest of the very good pitchers fail the innings pitched test as Brian states, and were really no better at anything else. Britton is a special case; I agree with those who say his excellence is diluted by his role.

As a Tigers fan, I have a bias, and saw a lot of Verlander. Still, trying to account for this, I'd pick him as Cy Young.

Scherzer is an even more clear pick. Innings pitched matter even more in this case.

I wonder if managers would be especially sensitive to the innings pitched criteria? They certainly have the immediate experience of the value in being able to rely on your ace to go long innings, start after start. I'd like to see how they would vote for the Cy.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:47 pm

Trouuuuuuut

Post by **brian** » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:56 pm

Second straight year a Las Vegan wins NL MVP.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Thu Nov 17, 2016 9:15 pm

Love that one of the two super serious AL Cy voters submitted their ballot with over a week left in the season.

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:57 pm

Mailing it in re: mailing it in. Journalism isn't exactly drawing the best and brightest these days.

Is it plausible that the only two guys who didn't include Verlander actually didn't discuss the Cy Young matter with each other?

Post by **brian** » Fri Nov 18, 2016 1:08 am

mister d wrote:Love that one of the two super serious AL Cy voters submitted their ballot with over a week left in the season.

Don't have an answer on how to fix it but it's obvious a lot of these guys don't give a fuck or really put much effort into their voting. And at the end of the day it doesn't matter a whole lot except for bonuses for the players and shit. But it's interesting Verlander is basically three votes by three guys from having three Cy Youngs and essentially being a legend. Doesn't change his career stats or anything like that. Just funny I guess how these things kinda matter and yet they don't.

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Fri Nov 18, 2016 2:11 am

Verlander's non-existant 2016 Cy Young might matter to future HOF voters. Many are going to have a hard time assessing with pitchers who are in five man rotations and so don't pile up the wins. Cy Youngs will work for many who aren't comfortable with advanced statistics as a powerful validation of the quality of a pitcher. There won't be many two-time -- if he had won in 2016 -- Cy Young winners (along with a close second in 2012) who have long and productive careers who don't end up in the Hall. Verlander most likely won't get in that way.