Are their stats even remotely comparable comparable?

You and dahs seem to think people are advocating for players to be completely disqualified if their team sucks. The argument is weighing overall performance vs value. If a player's performance is so far ahead of the next best player, then he should win. If it's close, value within the context of team is fair game.

No one is even remotely saying someone like Ethier should win over Trout.

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/5/2016 3:09:00 PM (view original):
Are their stats even remotely comparable comparable?

You and dahs seem to think people are advocating for players to be completely disqualified if their team sucks. The argument is weighing overall performance vs value. If a player's performance is so far ahead of the next best player, then he should win. If it's close, value within the context of team is fair game.

No one is even remotely saying someone like Ethier should win over Trout.

The problem I have is that Trout is clearly the most valuable player in the AL this year.

But he probably won't win the award because he can't pitch and he couldn't keep Pujols from aging poorly.

MLB isn't the NBA. The best player in the league can't drag a team full of scrubs into the playoffs.

For ****'s sake.

No one is saying the worst player on the best team is more valuable than the best player on the worst team.

Using your precious WAR, a 10 plays for a 100 loss team, a 9 plays for a hundred win team. A lot of people will lean towards the 9 because he contributed to a winning team while Mr.10 contributed to a team that was out on July 4th.

Yet, the better player was more valuable. The second best player shouldn't be given a bonus for having better teammates.

like Branch Rickey once said to Ralph Kiner when Kiner wanted a raise - "we finished last with you, we can finish last without you"
So, did Rickey not know Kiner was a valuable player? Rickey probably knew more about baseball than all of us put together.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2016 3:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/5/2016 3:09:00 PM (view original):
Are their stats even remotely comparable comparable?

You and dahs seem to think people are advocating for players to be completely disqualified if their team sucks. The argument is weighing overall performance vs value. If a player's performance is so far ahead of the next best player, then he should win. If it's close, value within the context of team is fair game.

No one is even remotely saying someone like Ethier should win over Trout.

The problem I have is that Trout is clearly the most valuable player in the AL this year.

But he probably won't win the award because he can't pitch and he couldn't keep Pujols from aging poorly.

MLB isn't the NBA. The best player in the league can't drag a team full of scrubs into the playoffs.

Pujols had 31 HR, 119 RBI and a 114 OPS+ this year. That's not too shabby.

I'm also not sure why people act like Trout is so hard done by. In his rookie year, he came in second to a Triple Crown winner. He was marginally better overall statistically, but Cabrera achieved a historically rare feat.

In 2013, he finished second to Cabrera again and Cabrera deserved it - he was better that year.

In 2014, he won.

In 2015, he finished second to Donaldson. Again, Trout was marginally better statistically, but Donaldson had a monster year and was a key factor in ending his team's 20+ year playoff drought.

This year, I would agree he's far enough ahead of Betts he should probably win. But prior to this year, I don't feel like he's been blatantly robbed at all.

I just looked over the past 10 years' voting and it turns out that between the 2 leagues, only 3 guys have won a Cy with an ERA+ below 150 (R.A. Dickey, C.C. Sabathia, and Max Scherzer). Nobody in the AL had an ERA+ of 150 or better this year. CC's was back in 2007, but the two guys who have done it more recently had big K numbers, 20+ wins, and a sub-3 ERA. Nobody in the AL this year comes close to that across-the-board profile. I still suspect that Porcello will win. If I got a vote I might be tempted to list Britton at #1. The Cy Young is not necessarily a "Most Valuable Pitcher" award. Obviously the top starters all put up massively more "value" than an elite reliever. But Britton was clearly the most exceptional pitcher. None of the starters really stand out - there are about 8-10 guys with similar resumes, and none of them really stand out. It's one thing if you had a hard time last year differentiating between Arrieta, Greinke, and Kershaw. They were all obviously incredible. The top pitchers in the AL this season were what most people would probably call "pretty good." Britton was extraordinary.

Not only was Britton's 827 ERA+ the best in history, it's only the 3rd season of 50+ IP in history above 600 (2012 Rodney, 1990 Eck). I don't actually necessarily think it was clearly the greatest relief season in history. ERA/ERA+ are clearly the most important pitching stats by a wide margin. I think most people on here know I don't buy into FIP. But sample sizes for closers are generally pretty small, and luck does play a bigger role. Britton's K rate was unexceptional enough, in elite relief season terms, to leave a valid debate against, for example, that 1990 Eckersley season, or Gagne's perfect season in 2003, or Kimbrel's great year in 2012. But it's pretty clearly one of the greatest relief seasons we've seen, and weighed against the sea of mediocrity in the starting pitching field, I can see where it could be good enough to garner a lot of votes.

if simply winning a bunch more games than anyone is no longer what qualifies one for the Cy, then I would call upon Bob Welch to give Roger Clemens his rightful award

Yeah, well, a lot of people have felt that way for a long time...