C.C. dominates, Brewers win Wild Card
Just in case Hoynes was right and it really determines the PBTNL, "our guys" made it, just barely, and thanks to yet another historic choke from the Mets. Sabathia, pitching on short rest for the third straight game, went all nine innings and yielded just one unearned run. He finishes with a 1.65 ERA in 17 starts for Brewers. He averaged a staggering 7.69 innings per start and led the NL with seven complete games, all in less than three months. Should he win the NL Cy Young? Absolutely.
about 1 year ago
Jay
357 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Can’t wait for Chuck to show up and talk about how CC always chokes in the clutch.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 28, 2008 8:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I gotta admit, I figured he gag on the Big Stage. But this just leaves me even madder about last year. We couldda won the WS last year if El Gordo wouldda pitched like this.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 29, 2008 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait and see what happens if he has to pitch in Boston in the postseason. CC was pretty awesome down the stretch in the regular season in 2007, too.
by odradek on Sep 29, 2008 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, and unfalsifiable. He chokes in big games, except when he doesn’t.
by Voltaire on Sep 29, 2008 1:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He does really well every time his team puts up 17 runs.
—> Like Voltaire said, it’s unfalsifiable….just like Jeter being Mr. Clutch. in the end it’s all marketing hype.
by Ohiokie on Sep 29, 2008 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly. In every way measurable, A-Rod has been better than Jeter in the postseason (hitting, at least — and we all know about Jeter’s defense). But because the Yankees won multiple WS before A-Rod showed up and haven’t won since, that means A-Rod isn’t “clutch”. Of course, the fact that Jeter was also on those teams that haven’t won is ignored. I guess A-Rod’s chokeness canceled out Jeter’s clutchiness. I wish that sportswriters would actually looks at stats instead of writing what they think is true.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 29, 2008 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Offensively, it’s probably more accurate to say they’ve been about the same:
A-Rod .279/.361/.483
Jeter .309/.377/.469
Rodriguez has shown more power, with 7 HR in 147 AB to Jeter’s 17 HR over 495 AB. A-Rod’s problem is he’s stunk in 2 of the last 3, which is what people remember.
by FredOx on Sep 29, 2008 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps he’s related to CC? He tends to choke, too, I hear.
by peter m on Sep 29, 2008 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm…I thought I remember seeing that A-Rod’s numbers were much better than Jeter’s. I guess that’s what I get from going by memory. Point is, they’re fairly close either way which isn’t what the media would have you believe.
Also, that 1 for 14 in 2006 is really killing his postseason numbers. What a bad four games: .071/.071/.071. (Although Jeter was .176 across the board last year against the Indians. Just imagine if A-Rod had done that!)
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 29, 2008 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is it not falsifiable? In four postseason starts he’s pitched 21.1 innings, giving up 27 hits, 17 runs and 18 walks. To quote Feyerabend: Is that good?
by odradek on Sep 29, 2008 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is it good? No. But he’s been in the postseason precisely twice, which means you don’t exactly have a large sample to go on. If Alex Rodriguez had not been in the playoffs before 2005 or after 2006, you could say the same about him (.103/.316/.138 in 38 PAs in 2005-06). For most players, playoff sample sizes are so small, that it’s relatively foolish to make broad pronouncements. Vlad’s career postseason OPS is barely .500, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see him do well against Boston. Ryan Howard has struck out 58% of the time, which would sound more impressive if it weren’t over 12 ABs.
by FredOx on Sep 29, 2008 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, and don’t forget that guys like Al Weis have been MVP’s in post-season play, despite the fact that they’re mediocre. Does that make them “clutch?”
Obviously, an empirical statement is falsifiable, but you have to define what’s meant by a “big game” (only post-season? or, crucial in some other way?) and you have to have enough cases to be able to argue that the results aren’t anomalies. In CC’s case, like most players, it’s hard to say anything meaningful about “big game” performance if that means post-season because of the small sample size. If we mean by “big game” any game where there’s significant pressure, then the outings he had in stretch run games over several seasons would have to count (at the very least), meaning that his numbers start to look quite a bit better.
by peter m on Sep 29, 2008 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
C.C. has not been a good pitcher in the postseason. I’ve said nothing about clutch, so you can’t tar me with that one.
Some pitchers—Whitey Ford, Greg Maddux—are good in the postseason. Some are bad. Some are small sample size. But so far, C.C. has not been a good pitcher in the postseason.
Here’s another aberration: C.C. pitching versus Oakland: 85.1 innings, 101 hits, 58 runs, 38 walks. Is this, too, a random deviation?
by odradek on Sep 29, 2008 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Greg Maddux’ first four postseason starts: 20 IP, 24 H, 20 R, 4 HR, 11 BB. I wouldn’t hold him up as an example of what CC should be as a postseason pitcher.
by FredOx on Sep 29, 2008 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait and see what happens if he has to pitch in Boston in the postseason.
We get to discover how C.C. fares in his fifth and sixth postseason games.
by odradek on Sep 29, 2008 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not as good as Maddux in the fifth game.
by odradek on Oct 2, 2008 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, okay (although I don’t really accept the implication that there’s something qualitatively different between pitching in the post-season and pitching in “big games” down the stretch. I’d need to hear what the arguments are in favor of that one).
We don’t have enough of a sample to comment on how well CC pitches in the post-season. The Oakland numbers might be large enough to warrant our concluding that he pitches poorly against Oakland. I don’t think it’s all that unusual for a pitcher to have a poor record against a particular team, although it’s possible, in this case, that the fact that it’s his “home team” is a factor.
by peter m on Sep 29, 2008 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Peter: I will try to differentiate between pitching down the stretch and pitching in postseason. Big games down the stretch, whether they’re in Detroit or Chicago or at home in Cleveland or Milwaukee, are intense but are still within the realm of normal. You don’t have Howard Cosell in the locker room, or 350 clowns from New York or Boston area newspapers shoving microphones at you. When you go to the park during the regular season—even for big games down the stretch—it’s easier to stay within your routine. You can park your car and go through all the rituals you go through during the season. When you’re pitching in the postseason, everything is exaggerated.
A pitcher like C.C., who is young and relies on emotion more than some pitchers, is more susceptible to getting flooded in big games. Hence the desire to throw 98 rather than to stay within his best range. He wants to win so much he loses control. The importance of these situations is further embellished by requests for tickets, the reactions of those around you. The spotlights. The Japanese TV crews.
The difference is between going through your normal quotidian routine and being on a bus in Midtown Manhattan watching lunatics screaming for blood.
by odradek on Sep 29, 2008 10:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t forget pitching against teams that have no dog left in the fight – be it the Cubs, who already had the best record in the NL or the Padres, who were toast three months ago. When the opposition has less on the line it’s a little easier to over-power them.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 30, 2008 2:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suppose the media circus argument has some merit and I’d certainly agree that CC tried to do too much last year when we hit the playoffs (perhaps because of that). But, that game against the Cubs that CC pitched was very much in the spotlight. And, I think there’s something to be said for pitching well when your time is tight and everything seems to be going wrong. As I recall, CC pitched well in that last week in 2005 when the Indians blew the playoffs — I know I went to a game against Tampa Bay, the last game they won, which he pitched. So, I think there can be more pressure in stretch run games than you’re acknowledging, Japanese media notwithstanding.
As for pitching against unmotivated opposition (Chuck’s point), that can cut both ways. Teams that are loose because they have nothing to win or lose often play well — one could argue that’s exactly what the Indians did for the past two months and KC certainly was playing well in the past couple of weeks.
I guess, overall, my sense of CC is somewhere between the extremes here. He does appear to be an emotional guy, and can sometimes lose control of those emotions, but he’s also demonstrated an ability to control those emotions (at least some of the time) and to pitch well when there’s pressure. Sometimes he’s great, sometimes not. And, I think he’s gotten better at this over time (and likely will continue to do so).
I’d certainly rather have CC pitching on my time than have to face him, let’s put it that way, even if he’s not impervious to pressure.
by peter m on Sep 30, 2008 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
CC got his crappy period out of the way early that year (from June 15 to August 5, he had a 10 game stretch in which he averaged 5 innings per start with an ERA over 8). When he came out of his funk, the Tribe started its charge from 13 games back to close within 1.5. Maybe that’s why his first four starts this year were so bad – he’s just moving his craptacular stretch earlier and earlier, and it’ll be in Spring Training in 2009.
And that Devil Rays start was pretty damn good (8 IP, 5 H, 0 R, 9 Ks), even if the Rays did lose 95 games that year.
by FredOx on Sep 30, 2008 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The posters above replied before I checked this thread again, and did a pretty good job of laying out the situation.
by Voltaire on Sep 29, 2008 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love the fact that there’s a discussion of falsifiability on a baseball forum. This place is great.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 29, 2008 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One thing we know for sure and will never change: when we needed him most, CC gagged. And just like Mesa, I’ll never forgive him for that.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 29, 2008 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When we needed him most?
I would argue pretty strongly that making the postseason at all was more important to us than winning once we got there. C.C. done the very best pitching of his career in three postseason drives, two of them for the Indians.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right up until the end – just like Mesa.
We may never have a better chance of winning the World Series again. You may spend the rest of your baseball fandom watching the Indians play and never see them come that close again.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 29, 2008 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right. Postseason is all that matters. Tony Fernandez was the most important player on the 1997 WS team.
by Voltaire on Sep 29, 2008 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d like to throw out a case for Marquis Grissom. He was dynamite
by Roger Dorn on Sep 29, 2008 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No Jose Mesa was. Like I said, we may never get this close again. You can fawn all over CC if you wish, but in the end he just didn’t have it.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 29, 2008 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you’re saying that if Sizemore strikes out swinging to end the 2009 WS in Game 7 after going 27-27 in his previous WS at-bats, he’s demonized forever and what he did was unforgiveable?
by Voltaire on Sep 29, 2008 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You built a pretty powerful straw man there V, but no he’s hot demonized just like he’s not demonized for his September 08 swan dive.
If you’re gonna wear the hero’s crown ya gotta be willing to wear the goat’s horns. There arer occasions when one guy is on the spot and that time defines him forever. Guys like Larsen, Mays, Morris. They’ve been chosen by circumstance and have produced. CC and Mesa where chosen and didn’t. For Indian’s fans everywhere.CC and Mesa will be remember as failures rest of their God-given days.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 29, 2008 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, my example was a bit of a straw man, but instead of a counter-argument you present some literary babble and no real answer.
CC and Mesa will be remember as failures rest of their God-given days.
Please tell me you at least recognize that you are the only one on the planet who thinks this.
by Voltaire on Sep 29, 2008 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am most assuredly not. And frankly it makes no difference to me what any one else thinks.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 29, 2008 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mesa? Of course others think that. But C.C.? Remembered as a failure for the rest of his days? Cleveland fans are not collectively that silly, I hope.
by Voltaire on Sep 29, 2008 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When I think of C.C., now and forever after, I will always have a memory of his performances in the 2007 postseason. That is not to deny his many good qualities. But it is undeniable: if C.C. had turned in a Jack Morris performance, there would be a good chance the Indians win the Series.
by odradek on Sep 29, 2008 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do we now and forever after always have a memory of Jhonny’s performance in that postseason when we think of him? I’m not criticizing, just wondering. I think we’re just being Clevelanders and latching onto the bad stuff.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 29, 2008 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Last year? Jhonny hammering the ball, you mean? Absolutely. I remember that shot he hit to deep center in Fenway.
by odradek on Sep 29, 2008 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Defines him forever?
Only in some minds.
Weak ones, to be specific.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am hoping the player is announced tomorrow. The speculation was that they would do it immediately after the final fate of the Brewers was known
by Roger Dorn on Sep 28, 2008 8:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
where’d you hear this?
Unfortunately, I doubt its true, if only because I’m sure Shapiro is taking his time. Doesn’t seem like his style to rush things for the purpose of media.
Though I wonder. All this time we’ve thought there was a list, or two, of players for Shapiro to choose from. I wonder if the contingency regarding the Brewers making the playoffs means that we can have a specific player Doug Melvin was reluctant to include? That would explain the alleged speculation that we’d know who the PTBNL was immediately after the Brewers fate was known.
by world dictator on Sep 28, 2008 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Taking his time? The minor league season has been over for three weeks!
by Jay on Sep 28, 2008 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only in the real world. In Shaprio world the minor league season just ended 5 mins ago.
by world dictator on Sep 28, 2008 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
what in the hell are you talking about?
by Brick. on Sep 28, 2008 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yes, but if the Brewers make the series, we get Braun. And for now, his season is still going.
by LeCavs Matt on Sep 28, 2008 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on Sep 29, 2008 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hello world dictator,
I hope you’re right on that second list. That would be a nice surprise.
As for the announcement, I thought I seen (perhaps here, not sure) that it would be announced after the World Series, so if that’s true, I think we’ll still have to wait another month or so before we learn who the PTBNL is.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
by indiansfan on Sep 28, 2008 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In the Indians.com article, Shapiro was directly quoted saying it had to be completed before the season ended. Not sure if that means the regular season or includes the playoffs
by Roger Dorn on Sep 28, 2008 9:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just because a trade is completed doesn’t mean that it will be announced. MLB keeps somewhat of a lid on announcements made during the playoffs, so it wouldn’t surprise me at all for nothing to be formally announced until after the World Series.
by Fundamentals on Sep 28, 2008 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
While you’re 100% right that MLB prefers announcements to be made after the playoffs, I doubt this PTBNL qualifies as a significant announcement to anybody outside of Cleveland and Milwaukee. And, well, nobody in Milwaukee cares right now.
by xrickx on Sep 28, 2008 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some kind of lid they kept on Alex Rodriguez and Scott Boras during last postseason, eh?
by odradek on Sep 28, 2008 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The lid on announcements is really just during the World Series. They can’t have a lid for a whole month, especially considering some moves must be made contractually by X number of days after the end of the season, which for 20-plus teams was yesterday.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t be surprised if it was soon, if only so that they could get whoever it is into the Indians organization in the Fall Instructional League. Get them familiar with the organization, etc…
by APV on Sep 28, 2008 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Peter Gammons just announced on Baseball Tonight that the PTBNL will be Brantley.
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
by Harry Doyle on Sep 28, 2008 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the info. – greatly appreciated!
Like I said in the other thread, I don’t mind if it was Brantley. Of course, I was hoping that it would be an even better prospect based on what the discussion in the thread from a week or two ago, but Brantley is solid enough, and hopefully, will be that and more for the Indians.
Welcome aboard Brantley!
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
by indiansfan on Sep 28, 2008 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hell yea!
But with the emergence of Choo and Gootz (batting decently), I am less excited for Brantley than I was at the time of the trade.
by Toxicadam on Sep 29, 2008 1:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m still not sold on Gutierrez — he needs to demonstrate some consistency at the plate to win me over. They’re also talking about the need to rest Grady more. So, if Brantley emerges as a solid major league outfielder in the near future, that’s fine with me. Francisco isn’t the solution, obviously — nice for depth, but not a starter.
by peter m on Sep 29, 2008 9:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve never been one of those “All-star at every position” guys. So even if Franklin is below league average .. his glove makes up for it, to me. That being said, I just hope there is more consistency from him next year. We can’t have him have such dramatic swings in production during the course of the year. We already have guys like Garko/Peralta that do that. Carrying his .210 average for most of June/July did not help the team at all.
The guy has hit .300 with a .900 OPS since August 1st. How can you not be behind that?
by Toxicadam on Sep 29, 2008 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Gutierrez and hope he can become a consistent major league outfielder. I just don’t think he’s shown that he is one yet — your comment seems to say something pretty similar. I imagine an outfield with 4 guys who play a lot (Grady, Choo, Gutierrez and eventually Brantley) would be pretty nice and would give us the option of sitting a guy when the opposing pitcher is a tough match (e.g., Choo or Grady vs. tough lefty) and would give us another guy to use as DH (Dellucci got some time there, did he not?). What scares me is banking on Gutierrez (or Choo for that matter) on the basis of a partial good season. Adding Brantley to the mix sounds like a good thing to me.
by peter m on Sep 29, 2008 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gutierrez rates as an AWESOME left fielder
like +20 runs this year. At that level he could be a replacement level hitter and still be an average corner outfielder.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 1, 2008 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
err, right fielder.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 1, 2008 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I haven’t really done the math, but I believe Guteirrez was more productive than Garko this season all-around, even after Garko’s hot finish. My point being, we already have Peralta/Gutierrez to be streaky, no room for Garko — not the other way around.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, let’s hope you’re not right about his having no trade value! I prefer Gutierrez to Garko any day.
by peter m on Sep 29, 2008 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I’d sure feel better for 2009 if we could have August and September Garko (.895 OPS) and Gutierrez (.865), but I fear we won’t.
by FredOx on Sep 29, 2008 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s definitely one way to remedy the problem. But I don’t see Garko going anywhere .. or more importantly, no one pushing him out of his spot.
This is the crux of the Indians problem offensively. It’s a team that can go into major funks over weeks and months. Some people forget that for a portion of 2007, it experienced a similar “funk” that we had this year. It just wasn’t as long or as dismal.
by Toxicadam on Sep 29, 2008 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There has been a lot of statistical analysis about the existence of “streaky” hitters. And the overall conclusion is that, much like clutch hitting, perhaps streaky hitters do exist, but it is extremely difficult to separate true streakiness from random variation.
The problem for guys like Garko and Gutierrez (and, to a lesser extent, Peralta) is that they’re simply not that good. I think that we look at games with rosey glasses a lot of times and see when these players are doing well, and then attribute bad times to streaks. When, in reality, the sum is their true level of ability.
by Peter Bendix on Sep 29, 2008 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
When I see Garko doing well, I close my eyes. That way I don’t have to think about the likelihood that one of his good stretches will be confused by the Indians with his developing into a good major league hitter.
by peter m on Sep 29, 2008 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not considered about positions. Get the best player, I say.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 29, 2008 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree. I think Brantley is solidly two years away anyway — maybe a late-2010 surprise, but not someone we’re looking at short-term.
We haven’t had a really good corner OF since 2001. I will be surprised if somehow we have a surplus by 2010.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Late 2010 is optimistic but not entirely improbable. Does he start 2009 in Columbus, as he has 635 ABs in AA, or does he need more time in Akron? One semi-interesting thing is that he’s a lefty with no platoon split. Seriously – the difference between his career OPS against LHP and RHP is 0.001.
by FredOx on Sep 29, 2008 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Am I the only one nervous about his 6 career homeruns (in more than 1600 plate appearances)? To be honest, for a speedy guy, he doesn’t even have many 2Bs or 3Bs (53 and 7, respectively). Going back through 2006 more than 55% of his balls in play have been ground balls. This doesn’t sound like a guy with much potential to “develop power”.
I agree that he’s got the highest ceiling, but I’m not sure the odds of reaching that ceiling are very high. I’d rather not end up with Alex Cole manning one of our corner outfield slots.
by APV on Sep 29, 2008 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think if he’s the guy, it’s got to be based on the scouts thinking those numbers aren’t representative of what he can do, of how he swings the bat and works an at bat, of how his frame is likely to fill out, etc. When you’ve been injured, power is often the last thing to come back, and when you’re 20-21, power is almost always the last thing to develop.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand that, and if they go ahead and take Brantley I’ll assume they did so based on extensive scouting. But Brantley’s lack of power seems to be less an issue of hitting the ball far enough, and more of simply not having a swing conducive to hitting line drives through the air. And if you begin re-working his swing in a major way, you risk losing the plus ability he shows right now, which is a remarkable ability to avoid striking out.
I’m a big fan of the front office, but this certainly not a pick without risk. We better stop hearing all those “Shapiro is too conservative in his picks” complain if we get Brantley.
by APV on Sep 29, 2008 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, I am somewhat concerned, because it’s rare that a corner outfielder who relies upon speed is particularly valuable.
That said, he only struck out 27 times this year, while walking 50 times. That’s fantastic.
by Peter Bendix on Sep 29, 2008 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously…that 5% K-rate is phenomenal (although he’s typically been in the 8-11 range, which is good, but not phenomenal). But as I just replied to Jay above…I don’t think he can survive in the majors hitting everything into the ground. And if you begin to re-work his swing, I have to believe you risk losing some of his contact ability.
by APV on Sep 29, 2008 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I mixed up “I’m not concerned about positions” and “I’m not considering positions.”
Self-flag.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 29, 2008 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok, cool, but, uh, we don’t know this is for sure until the Indians announce it, right? I mean, it’s not like Gammons got the Colon trade dead on six years ago …
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Sep 29, 2008 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, I didn’t notice Detroit needs to win to stay out of the cellar. Unreal
by Roger Dorn on Sep 28, 2008 9:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He averaged a staggering 7.69 innings per start and led the NL with seven complete games, all in less than three months. Should he win the NL Cy Young? Absolutely.
I watched the majority of this game and I’ll admit I got pretty swept up in the “CC is God” sentiment I’m sure most Brewers fans have been feeling (and we all felt last year). He was awesome. A thought crossed my mind in the bottom of the 8th when they left him in to lead off the inning (a move that would have potentially looked awful if they lost the game): If CC hits a home run to win the game, there’s no way he doesn’t win the Cy Young just on the emotion that would follow today*.
Having calmed down a bit I’m still okay with him winning; Lincecum probably deserves it, though. I’m having a tough time with the half-season aspect of it all. It looks on merit it’s Lincecum vs. Santana with some combination of CC, Webb, and Lidge gathering votes underneath. In reality I think Lincecum just beats out Webb (Webb probably wins it if Arizona makes the playoffs, even though this is erroneous thinking on the voters’ part—but Webb did crap the bed a few times in the middle of their failed run). I honestly have no idea how CC will finish, but I’m sure we’ll see a lot of writers letting us know where they sit in the next week. I’d be fine with him winning it.
Wait a minute— has the deadline for voting passed?
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 28, 2008 9:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That last line should have been the second *
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 28, 2008 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
People get hung up on “the half-season thing” for no reason.
What we’re looking at is something akin to Eckersley’s career and HOF candidacy. He got in as a dominant reliever, but with bonus points for a decade spent as a very good — but not great — starter.
Ichiro’s career in Japan will be part of his HOF resume as well.
There is no reason not to consider C.C.’s half-season in the AL, where he was a Top 20 starter, alongside his half-season in the NL, during which he was far and away the best pitcher in the league.
I’m not saying the half-season in the AL should get full weight, but look at it another way.
• C.C. pitched almost half his innings in the AL, but more like two-thirds of his PRC were in the NL.
• Lincecum pitched 28 fewer innings and barely had a lower ERA than C.C. (0.08 lower) despite getting to pitch against pitchers rather than DH’s for half the season.
• If they gave out an MLB Cy Young, is there any doubt that C.C. would place higher than any other NL pitcher?
C.C. had the best season of any pitcher who played in the NL, totally dominated in the NL and transformed the NL pennant race. The reasons not to give it to him are purely semantic.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You cannot give Sabathia credit for his time in the AL. That’s like not giving Cliff Lee the Cy Young because he stunk it up last season.
If the award was for the best pitcher in baseball, yes, Sabathia deserves it. And while he might be the best pitcher in the NL and would be the most valuable if he spent the whole season on the Brewers, he did not contribute as much to his team as Lincecum or Johan.
by Peter Bendix on Sep 29, 2008 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That raises another interesting question. Who WAS the best pitcher in baseball this year? Lee or Sabathia? I’m tempted to vote for Lee — more consistent, fewer NL opponents.
by peter m on Sep 29, 2008 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOVE the final 3 words.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on Sep 29, 2008 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
both faced hitters extremely worse than average
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 1, 2008 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who says I can’t give Sabathia any credit for his time in the AL?
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I pretty sure they call it the NL Cy Young Award – pretty sure.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 29, 2008 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can, but not when voting for a league-only award.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 29, 2008 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The other point I’d make is that if you’re not willing to give Sabathia a Cy Young vote based on 130 brilliant innings in the heat of a pennant race, then you shouldn’t ever be willing to vote for a reliever.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not willing to vote for a reliever.
I think, like I said, that giving credit for time spent in another league is like giving credit for the previous year.
by Peter Bendix on Sep 29, 2008 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But what if a guy had spent the first half as a decent reliever, the second half as a lights-out starter? Hell, Peter, most of the voters give greater credit for “wins” than for anything else. Surely this is a far lesser sin. I guess my feeling is that the award is more clearly based on exactly one season than it is based on spending the whole season in one league. This may be the only type of situation where it makes sense to give a split-league guy the Cy Young vote, but it does in this case.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are we talking about what WILL happen or what you (or I) would do? Because chances are, those are two very different things.
Voters will likely give Sabathia a lot of consideration, just like they will give Brandon Webb and his 22 wins a lot of consideration.
I, personally, do not believe that Sabathia contribued as much to the Brewers as Johan did for the Mets or Lincecum did for the Giants. Therefore, Sabathia would probably rank #3 (or maybe even lower) on my own personal ballot.
I’m a huge fan of the guy (not literally). I’d love to see him win it, because he’s been historically good this year. But he hasn’t contribued enough value to any individual team for me to merit giving him either the AL or NL Cy Young.
by Peter Bendix on Sep 29, 2008 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I, personally, do not believe that Sabathia contribued as much to the Brewers as Johan did for the Mets or Lincecum did for the Giants. Therefore, Sabathia would probably rank #3 (or maybe even lower) on my own personal ballot.
Ah, but you claimed that your issue was with the league, not the team. Had C.C. been on another NL club, I assume you’d be considering it fully, even if he didn’t contribute to the Brewers. And that is essentially my point — what difference does it really make what team he was on earlier in the year?
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No. If Sabathia had spent the first half of the season in the NL – but with a team other than Milwaukee – I would vote for him as the NL Cy Young.
So it’s contribution, in essence, to the league, not to the team. Because it’s the National League Cy Young award.
by Peter Bendix on Sep 29, 2008 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Above this post you argue that CC didn’t contribute as much to his team (in aggregate counting terms I suppose) as Johan or Lincecum.
So what is this about? Team, or League?
by jhon on Sep 29, 2008 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I said team. I meant league. Because it’s the NL award, not the Milwaukee Brewers award. Sorry I misspoke (mistyped).
by Peter Bendix on Sep 30, 2008 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m fully behind awarding Sabathia the Brewers Cy Young Award.
by FredOx on Sep 30, 2008 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Should you count his interleague starts when he pitched against the NL but was on an AL team then?
IP H R ER BB SO
6/15 vs. SD (W) 8.0 6 3 3 1 10
6/21 vs. LAD 7.0 5 1 1 1 10
6/27 vs. Cin (W) 8.0 4 0 0 2 11
by Nat on Sep 30, 2008 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i swear it looked good when I previewed it…..
IP H R ER BB SO
6/15 vs SD (W) 8.0 6 3 3 1 10
6/21 LAD (ND) 7.0 5 1 1 1 10
6/27 vs Cin (W) 8.0 4 0 0 2 11
by Nat on Sep 30, 2008 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
interesting point.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on Sep 30, 2008 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's an argument of semantics
how you define NL Cy Young does nothing to change how good of a pitcher CC was this year. I believe most people only credit a pitcher with performances while on a team in the NL, starting or relieving, and combining teams (like Paul Byrd). But I agree it’s sort of lame to not give CC an award this year for being the best pitcher in the majors. The BBWAA doesn’t have an award for that, yet another mark against them.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 1, 2008 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great to have you here, Sky, but you may have noticed that we frown on the use of Subject line here. It makes things harder to browse.
by Jay on Oct 1, 2008 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
People get hung up on "the half-season thing" for no reason.
Well one of our big arguments in the Sabathia vs. Beckett debate last year was that Sabathia pitched more innings, and so this was measurably better.
I’m not saying it’s a good rule, but you only get considered for your time in the NL. And CC did not pitch a lot of innings in the NL. I wouldn’t vote for a reliever for the same consideration.
I assure you I agree with you, but the semantics have to be considered.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 29, 2008 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not saying it’s a good rule, but you only get considered for your time in the NL.
Says who?
Where is this rule?
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s based on logical self-consistency as seen by comparing C.C./Beckett to C.C./Webb.
by Voltaire on Sep 29, 2008 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uh, no. There is no logical inconsistency in viewing Sabathia’s performance last year as more deserving than Beckett’s, and this year more deserving than Lincecum. The argument for Beckett pertained not just to his contribution to one team, or within one league, but to the overall caliber of his own season — so that if you reduced the question to, simply, which pitcher had the better overall season, Beckett’s IP deficit still mattered. The same cannot be said in the 2008 NL Cy Young argument.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the point, that you use IP to help determine that, is key.
by Voltaire on Sep 29, 2008 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t see it that way. IP is one component of contribution but not the only one. You can boil everything down to PRC and that works pretty well.
I basically feel that the award is for the NL pitcher who had the best season, and C.C. was an NL pitcher this season, and he had a better season than any of the other NL pitchers.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This was originally said by nick:
Well one of our big arguments in the Sabathia vs. Beckett debate last year was that Sabathia pitched more innings, and so this was measurably better.
And I was just pointing out that IP matters, among other things, and it’s not silly to compare the two situations to check for self-consistency. You’ve made the case they are, so all’s good.
by Voltaire on Sep 29, 2008 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so why not CC as AL Cy Young winner, too?
what if CC was traded to the Brewers (somehow) with one start left in the season. would he be eligible for NL Cy Young then?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 1, 2008 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe he would still be eligible, but I doubt anyone would consider voting for him.
The main reason C.C. is not the AL winner is that he wasn’t as good as Cliff Lee, and arguably not as good as Halladay, either.
Aside from that, I think it’s appropriate in a split-season to consider both the pitcher’s total season and also his performance within that specific league. Sabathia had as good as or a better complete season than any NL pitcher, and he also dominated the NL in particular far more than any NL pitcher.
As for the AL award, C.C.’s complete season was not quite as good as one or two other AL pitchers, and he did not come close to dominating the AL the way that other AL pitchers did.
The parallel here is to situations like considering Negro League performances for induction to the Hall of Fame. It would be both foolish and unfair not to consider what a player did in the Negro League, when he wasn’t in the AL or NL through no fault of his own. At the same time, it is still fair to consider the quality of play and reliability of stats of that part of his career, and to weight that part differently from any MLB parts. And again, Ichiro will get some consideration for his achievements in Japan, even if they are not fully weighted alongside his achievements in MLB.
by Jay on Oct 1, 2008 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re-reading this post, I realize maybe I haven’t been clear about my thinking on this.
C.C. is only in the argument, in my view, because of the way he dominated the NL. From the day he arrived, he was substantially the best pitcher in the league, even though Santana also was going on a tear. Sabathia pitched 10 more innings in the same number of starts, 17, and his ERA was nearly a half-run lower. He struck out 25 more guys, gave up three fewer HR and six fewer BB.
But that, to me, only puts C.C. in the discussion. You still can’t give him the award (in my view) if the quality of his season overall doesn’t also compare well with Santana and Lincecum — and it does. Yes, he falls slightly behind in overall ERA, but that’s without any reasonable adjustment for differences between the leagues, especially the DH. It’s pretty clear that Sabathia was at least as good as those guys over their first 17-18 starts, and he clearly was the best pitcher in the NL over their last 17 starts.
I don’t see that there is a tie to break here, but if there is one, C.C. wins the tiebreakers anyways. Santana and Sabathia both had heroic playoff pushes and significantly more innings than Lincecum. I will give Santana equal credit for his playoff-push context, but Sabathia still has more innings and better peripherals, and he pitched in front of a much worse defense — essentially, his awesomeness probably had less to do with luck and support than Santana’s did, and he did it for more innings.
by Jay on Oct 1, 2008 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
are we clamoring for Halladay this year because of this stupid “rule”?
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on Sep 29, 2008 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure what rule you’re talking about. Halladay and Lee pitch in the same league.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 29, 2008 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the innings argument.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on Sep 29, 2008 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah. I never referred to that as being the rule. I referred to the separation between an NL Cy Young and an AL Cy Young:
I’m not saying it’s a good rule, but you only get considered for your time in the NL
Now Jay has argued this isn’t any kind of “rule,” and if so only in theory or something. But anyway, that’s not what you’re getting at.
The innings. Well one of the issues is that we were arguing for the guy with more innings last year (because he was an Indian) and this year we’re making the case for the guy with less innings (because he’s an Indian). That’s just home bias, which is why there’s no “clamoring.”
Beckett pitched 40 less innings than CC last year— partially because of an injury that forced him out of 2 starts, but I’m not sure he would have made up those 40 innings then (just a hunch). Lee has only pitched 20 less innings than Halladay this year. But what’s important is that Sabathia and Beckett had very identical years last year; Beckett sported an ERA+ of 145 and Sabathia had a 143. This year Halladay’s ERA+ is 155 but Lee’s is 175. So when you look at Beckett and Sabathia, you say that they had very similar years but CC just did more of it for his team. When you look at Halladay and Lee you can see that not only was there not as much of an innings disparity, but Lee was better in his innings.
You can argue that Lee pitched against weaker competition, but that’s not within his control. He dominated the teams he played against. But that has nothing to do what your question. The reason we don’t clamor for Halladay is because last year it was a case of “All things being equal, Sabathia pitched more innings.” You can’t say “all things being equal” this year, at least not in my opinion.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 29, 2008 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
of course you need to include strength of opponents
it’s not within Lee’s control, sure, but shouldn’t he do better against weaker competition if he’s the better pitcher? i don’t think quality of opponents makes up for his edge over Halladay, but it’s certainly a consideration.
that’s like saying Holliday shouldn’t get penalized for playing in Coors because his home ballpark isn’t under his control.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 1, 2008 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If CC were under consideration for the AL Cy Young award after pitching part of the season in the NL i’d be less inclined to “vote” for him. However, its the other way around.
Considering the fact that CC’s time in the AL was against better competition, and a DH, It seems silly to punish him for pitching well in a HARDER league before his time in the NL.
by world dictator on Sep 29, 2008 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I"m not really clear what your bottom-line point here is. C.C. pitched well in the AL overall but not well enough to be a Cy Young contender. His overall season would make him second in the AL, first or second in the NL, and he was most dominant, historically dominant even, in the NL portion of his season.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Forgot to add, even after correcting for park and league differences, the DH, and the NL sucking, C.C. was still much better in the NL than in the AL. Bendix has a piece up now on BtBS that argues that he was historically dominant all the way back to mid-April.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Considering the fact that CC’s time in the AL was against better competition, and a DH, It seems silly to punish him for pitching well in a HARDER league before his time in the NL.
I must have missed this until Jay replied, and now it’s caught my eye.
This isn’t at all what I’m saying. I’m trying to throw out his AL stats altogether (in consideration for the NL Cy Young), not punish him. The point is, it’s a different league, and it’s the NATIONAL LEAGUE Cy Young award. Maybe I’m being too simplistic, but maybe some of you are thinking too much.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 29, 2008 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I should also add:
We’re looking at a season in which CC could win the NL Cy Young (and get MVP votes), Manny could win the NL MVP, Cliff Lee could win the AL Cy Young, and the Rays and Brewers could meet in the World Series. I love baseball.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 28, 2008 10:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The last two home runs he’s hit— both of which I was lucky enough to have seen live on TV —were joys to watch because of both the power of the swing and the look on his face when he rounded first.
Honestly, after a personalized “Chooooooooooo” t-shirt (thanks Jay), a retro-style Brewers cap will probably be my next sports clothing purchase.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 28, 2008 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Get the cap with the ugly pale yellow front panel. That was bad, but not as bad as the road jerseys from the mid 1980s. The uniforms got better when they went to the NL.
by FredOx on Sep 29, 2008 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I texted my brother-in-law that I saw him on the WGN feed right after the Counsell walk. that tied it For whatever reason, he called me back just as Braun stepped to the plate. When Braun’s HR went out, he just held the phone up while he celebrated with his buddies.
Miller Park was going bananas.
He called me later to say that the WHOLE stadium stayed to watch the Mets lose on the JumboTron.
Damn, I wish that would have been us…
by The DiaTriber on Sep 29, 2008 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
My uncle wrote me to tell me of a party on the lakefront today to celebrate in Milwaukee. What a town.
by bewwolv on Sep 29, 2008 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good work, big boy. Love every minute of it.
by Voltaire on Sep 29, 2008 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hope he drowns.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 29, 2008 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I chuckled.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on Sep 29, 2008 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jay, are you still doubting 6/150 for CC? With this second half performance, it seems a little light to me.
by oxforddave on Sep 29, 2008 9:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think 5/140 is more likely. You have to wonder who’s going to be scared off by the 260-280 IP he’s going to end up with, but it only takes one club …
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I saw an interesting comment on one of the BPro chats. Basically the question was, who should the yankees spend 20+ mil/year on for the next 5-6 years Texeira or CC? The chatter (I think it was Goldstein) said Texeira. I think this is true for a mid to high market team. But for a team like the Yankees that basically can spend twice as much as a high market team, I think CC is by far the best choice.
Why? This is because of they are both healthy and performing at their possible levels, CC is way more valuable, especially in the post season. It is not a one off for CC either, he has performed like this for the last 3 1/2 years. The reason why Texeira may be a better buy is that position players are more consistent, and much less likely to have a severe injury, and if you are going to spend that much money you want some guarantee of performance. But for the Yankees, it is not much money! If CC pulls a Carpenter, it hurts, but they can afford it. Therefore take the player with more upside.
Coming to think of it, if you are the Yankees, just take both. I never understood why the Yankees did not sign Manny and Mussina in the 2000 offseason. When a transcendent player comes on the market, just sign him. It is better than spending cash on the Giambi’s of the world.
by oxforddave on Sep 29, 2008 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Yankees need hitting (and defense) far more than they need pitching, right now. If they have to choose between Tex or CC, they should choose Tex not only because he’s far less risky over the life of the contract, but because he also fills a more urgent need.
Pretty strange to think that the Yankees need to improve their offense, I know, but it’s true. And after Tex, who else is available? Burrell? Dunn? Both are unlikely to age well and butchers on defense.
by Peter Bendix on Sep 29, 2008 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t mind that. What do we think the Indians could get for him? A decent relief pitcher?
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 29, 2008 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Check out this guy.
He pitched for the Mets this year.
by odradek on Sep 29, 2008 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Oh please, Francisco has nothing in common with Giles.
Unless you’re joking, of course. I will award a rec pending some clarification on this.
by jhon on Sep 29, 2008 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, Ricardo is just a shadow of his former self, too.
by odradek on Sep 29, 2008 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I knew that was coming. But, like jhon said, Ben Francisco is not Brian Giles.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 29, 2008 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I had already recommended your comment. I am a little slow today. The only way I can save face now is if it turns green.
by jhon on Sep 29, 2008 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ben is a righthanded version of Giles minus the on-base skills. And fielding ability.
by odradek on Sep 29, 2008 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
And the brother that plays second base.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 29, 2008 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i don’t know but it’s my most pressing offseason priority. trade ben fran and garko while someone might think they’re good
by Gradyforpresident on Sep 29, 2008 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately, I don’t think 26-year-old 4th outfielders have much value.
by Peter Bendix on Sep 29, 2008 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but some teams have GM’s whose idea of value is much different than most people’s. See: Zito, Barry.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 29, 2008 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Think we can get someone to take Garko off our hands?
by jhon on Sep 29, 2008 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Garko has basically negligible value on the trade market. We wouldn’t likely get anything remotely useful for him, so might as well keep him and hope he builds his value back up, at least a little.
by Peter Bendix on Sep 29, 2008 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This all sounds reminiscent of the "trade Cliff Lee" talk of last year. You know, maybe some idiot GM will think he has some value, he’s old for his development, we’ve seen his apogee.
But what I really am intrigued by is Victor at third, Asdrubal at short and Peralta at second, leaving Garko at first and Shoppach to catch. That line-up just might work. Keep Carroll as a utility and maybe bring Santana up after June/July. We’re gonna need Garko in the future. I wouldn’t trade him just yet.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 29, 2008 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One key difference being, Lee was always viewed as having All-Star potential, while Garko had already reached the ceiling foreseen for him last season. Another key difference being, Cliff Lee was injured as opposed to totally lousy while totally healthy.
There is no rational reason to root for Garko to be at first base next season. We cannot assume that Garko/Hafner combined will make up more than one productive spot in the lineup — and that’s if we’re lucky. That means we need to get another talented body into the lineup.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously… I’d like to keep both Gutz and Garko, but Laporta makes it difficult to do so. You only have room for so many position players. And I want Shoppach to be catching and Vic to be playing 1b. And I’d be really pissed if we trade Gutz for anybody less than Lincecum. Garko is another story.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on Sep 29, 2008 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
At least Gutierrez plays fantastic defense in right, thus improving his overall value. Garko is a butcher defensively.
by Peter Bendix on Sep 29, 2008 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Get ready to be disappointed. We may well trade Gootz, and it won’t be for someone as good as or better than Lincecum.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously not Lincecum, but Gootz is a weird guy to try to peg a trade value on. At least for me. I wonder how far “best CF in game” and “youth on his side” goes vs. “has been really disappointing this year” when haggling.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 30, 2008 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know I don’t recall any one mentioning Cliff’s injuries last off-season when everybody – everybody – was clammering for a trade. Nor do I recall anyone claiming that Cliff had All-Star potential during that period either. But then again, my memory ain’t what it usta be.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 30, 2008 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cliff had All-Star potential way-back-when.
Not everyone was clamoring for a trade. Nobody would’ve been sad to see him traded, but there was also a strong sense that we probably would be selling low if we moved him. Lee’s career had been somewhat below expectations even prior to 2007, but the severity of his problems in 2007 was viewed alternately as either the culmination of a three-year trend or just a one-year fluke.
by Jay on Sep 30, 2008 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can look it up – I know I specifically was of the “probably a good idea to keep him for depth” crowd.
by Voltaire on Sep 30, 2008 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wanted to trade him.
/shrug.
I thought he overperformed in his best year and was unwilling to listen to coaching in 2007. I didn’t see this year coming, but I don’t think that’s egregious.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 30, 2008 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
First I’ve heard of Vic moving to 3rd ….. interesting proposition, but one I fear that the FO will not even consider.
Most likely, it will be a Marte/Carroll sharing again next year with Jhonny and AbaCab in the middle. I suspect Vic will get closer to 80 games than 40 at 1B next season, with Shoppach getting plenty of PT.
by talonk on Sep 29, 2008 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe we can get Wedge out of here by refusing to unload Marte. Under this scenario, Wedge would rather quit than play Marte.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on Sep 29, 2008 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually the Vic to third thing is something I saw in the PD. Sorry but no link. Evidently he’s been taking ground balls there for quite a while, mostly as a lark I think. But who knows?
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 29, 2008 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would like to support this, but it’s a little tough considering the weak state of our club at 1B and DH. I have trouble believing the club is relying on Garko and Hafner to fill two lineup spots where the typical team is getting some of its best production. It just seems foolish.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I read the same thing Chuck is referring to (in a larger comment on who would play third now that Marte was hurt). He seemed to be half-joking, but he did say Vic’s “eyes lit up” when the idea of playing third came up. I had the impression this was a “just in case” thing and they don’t have any really serious intention to play Martinez at third.
by peter m on Sep 29, 2008 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s the way I read it. Kind of like, who would have been your third catcher if Kelly had been hurt, and Wedge would say, Garko.
by odradek on Sep 29, 2008 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But then again, I’ve seen Johnny Bench play third and let’s just say it wasn’t pretty. But then again I don’t think that Johnny ever played short stop on any level.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 29, 2008 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But he was over the hill at that point. Victor is still very much in his prime, and probably would stay in his prime longer if he were at 3B.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Disregarding 1B/DH, doesn’t moving Vic to 3B have the same problem as moving Peralta to 3B? Their offense is excellent for their positions, but not that great if playing at third.
by cleveland teamer on Sep 29, 2008 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but Victor is a much better hitter than Jhonny, and therefore his bat would play much better at 3B than Jhonny’s, even if it is a loss of some of Victor’s value.
That being said, we should entertain trade talks for Shoppach.
by Peter Bendix on Sep 30, 2008 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just don’t see Victor as a capable third baseman. You could convince me otherwise, but I just imagine he’d be a statue out there. Not worth it, IMO.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 30, 2008 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I agree. Jhonny could probably be an adequate 3B, whereas we have absolutely no idea about Victor.
by Peter Bendix on Sep 30, 2008 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually feel pretty confident that Victor would make a very good third baseman. His overall mix of defensive skills is very good at catcher, and the main bad rap on him was that he allowed a lot of SB in a season when his toe was broken. Moreover, he’s been fairly terrific over at first base.
There’s another significant difference between moving Jhonny and Victor there other than their raw hitting ability, and that is that we could reasonably expect Victor to be an even better hitter as a regular 3B than he is as a regular catcher. Playing catcher puts an incredible amount of wear on a player’s whole body, especially his ability to use his legs for power, and it also costs him pure playing time.
I rather expect Victor would be one of the best third basemen in the game, all-around.
by Jay on Sep 30, 2008 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah I’m not sure we should get into the buy high / sell low business. Doesn’t seem to usual work for,…you know businesses, and probably not baseball teams.
by hans on Sep 29, 2008 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I for one don’t want to sell Garko, I want to send him to Columbus for depth. He gets the Barfield treatment if I’m running the club, and two weeks of smashball at the end doesn’t redeem five horrible months.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah thats what they’ll do with him. There’s really no reason to trade him at this point, and moving him down to AAA isn’t going to really block anyone, so if anything we hold him for depth and the possibility that he corrects somethings in his hitting approach.
by hans on Sep 29, 2008 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe that’s what they SHOULD do, but when was the last time a team sent a guy with 90 RBI’s (co-leader) to the minors. I know RBI’s don’t indicate anything much about a hitter, but I just can’t recall that ever happening. I think it’s more likely that he’ll start the season with the team and, unless he reverts to his mid-summer form, he’ll platoon with Vic at first. And, I can’t say I like that at all.
by peter m on Sep 30, 2008 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you, Peter. He should start next year as a depth guy in Columbus, but his two weeks of smashball will, I think, keep him around. The only hope is that Ed Wade is impressed with a 90 RBI guy.
by odradek on Sep 30, 2008 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
August 1 – Sept 12 — 733 OPS.
Sept 13 – Sept 28 — 1399 OPS.
I mean two weeks.
by Jay on Oct 1, 2008 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In the interest of statistical significance, let me remind you of the overall season totals produced by Ryan Garko:
346 .404 .750
Whether he had a good month or a good two weeks, he had a very weak YEAR. We are forced either to assume that the larger sample is meaningful, or that the last two (or four) weeks indicate what he’s really like as a hitter. Call me old-fashioned, but I’m not persuaded by his performance in the last few weeks.
by peter m on Oct 3, 2008 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What, you think I got the numbers wrong? I didn’t.
That’s an OPS+ of 95, by the way, and a little worse than his numbers for the whole season.
Please note … Sept 16-28 is a stretch of only 13 days, during which Garko started exactly nine games. So his Big Smashmouth Finish consisted of exactly nine starts plus one pinch-hit single.
So once again … Garko was pretty bad clear through mid-September. The only reason his numbers for the whole month of September look great are because of his performance in the last two weeks, which was pretty epic.
So once again … I MEAN TWO WEEKS.
by Jay on Oct 4, 2008 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn’t think inning-eating, gascans had much value either, some MLB GMs disagreed.
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
by rolub on Sep 29, 2008 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair, signing a player and trading for a player are different. Trades involve losing actual talent, whereas signing a player only involves money.
And one of those GMs is gone now.
by Peter Bendix on Sep 29, 2008 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know that trades and free agent signings are not equal, but in terms of assets, both are valuable to an organization. Specifically, I’m referring to the Twins’ signing of Livan Hernandez… it’s not as if the Twins have an open checkbook from which to sign guys. Them missing on a free agent signing is more harmful than it is to the Yankees, Red Sox, etc.
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
by rolub on Sep 29, 2008 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes but the Winner’s Curse or whatever you want to call it is in play for free agents.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 29, 2008 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But it’s in play somewhat for trades, too. Not as much, but somewhat.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Considering how split we are over BenFran’s value, I’m sure there are GMs that would love him.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 29, 2008 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
chuck, why do you think victor could play third?
by Gradyforpresident on Sep 29, 2008 4:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I believe Eric Wedge is on record as saying that Victor had received some reps at third base in order to fill in on an emergency basis for the duration of Cabrera’s suspension.
by woodsmeister on Sep 29, 2008 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, that’s just in an emergency basis then, right?
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Sep 29, 2008 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and could hafner just retire and give us like 3/4 his extension back? wouldn’t that be the right thing to do?
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Sep 29, 2008 4:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It basically is not possible. The union has the authority to block any change in a player contract.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
bah
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Sep 29, 2008 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
can we refer to it as the player’s association. calling it a union is a joke to unions
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Sep 29, 2008 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, guys, bottom line …
• Any pitcher who appeared in an NL game is eligible.
• Voters can consider whatever they want.
• Who had the best all-around season is a legitimate consideration.
• You can disagree, but it’s arbitrary and not based on any rule or precedent.
• There is already precedent for a pitcher traded to the NL mid-year winning the NL Cy Young.
Rick Sutcliffe, 1984, traded from the Indians to the Cubs.
• He was traded three weeks earlier, in mid-June rather than the first few days of July.
• He started 20 games, rather than 17.
• He pitched 150 innings rather than 130.
• He did not qualify for the ERA title in either league, as C.C. didn’t, with < 162 IP.
• He was not as dominant in the NL — ERA was more than a run higher, 2.69 to 1.65.
• His ERA+ in the NL wasn’t even close — 144 compared with 262.
• He was below-average in the AL before being traded (5.15 ERA, 80 ERA+), unlike C.C. who was about the same amount above-average (3.83 ERA, 116 ERA+). Park- and league-adjusted, C.C. was nearly two runs better per game.
So let’s review:
• C.C. is eligible.
• There’s no rule against considering his AL stats.
• There is precedent for it.
• C.C.’s season is comparable to the precedent and arguably more compelling.
And the argument against:
• You just can’t!
Okay, guys, nice argument.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 5:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I was going to argue that CC’s competition in 07 is much better than Sutcliffes in 84. But Gooden had an incredible rookie year that year. So it wasn’t the competition.
I know you hate it, but it just boils down to wins. Sutcliffe was 16-1 that year, and Gooden only had 17 wins. I think CC was much better this year and just as important to his team than Sutcliffe in 84, but that means nothing. The voters vote for wins. In fact, Sutcliffe was unanimous that year!
by oxforddave on Sep 29, 2008 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We’re not talking about “will win,” we’re talking about “should win.”
Several folks here have essentially said C.C. isn’t eligible and/or should not be considered, because not enough of his season was in the NL (arbitrary) and the AL part cannot be considered (simply a made-up rule).
by Jay on Sep 29, 2008 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which makes the “who’s the best pitcher in baseball” discuss more clear cut: it’s Cliff Lee by a mile. There’s not a stretch in the season where Cliff was as bad as CC was in April, when he was still an Indian.
He’ll get his bag of cash, that’s all he really wants.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 29, 2008 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
By a mile? A mile? Really?
They’re pretty even with respect to control, baserunner suppression, runs allowed. CC pitched 30 more (excellent) innings, had vastly more strike outs and as a bonus he recorded 10 CG / 5 shut outs to Cliff’s 4 CG / 2 SHO (those last outs are the toughest, they say). Yeah, Cliff pitched in the AL longer, but CC accomplished this in a pennant race and in pitching on short—very short—rest. In the final tally, CC was best pitcher in either league in baseball this year. Clearly. By a mile. I’ll need to be convinced that Cliff was better than Lincecum. I would have loved to see Cliff make his final start and alleviate these doubts.
by jhon on Sep 29, 2008 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes he did all of that – but he also did this, for us, in April, when we thought we might compete for a pennant:
ERA 7.89 Op AVG. .305 OBP .384 OPS .911
In other words for about 25% of the time he pitched for us, he stunk.
Mr. Lee’s worst month in 08 was June where he put up an ERA of 3.41 his oppenents numbers were:
AVG .262 OBP .295 OPS.684 although Ops had OPS’s of .730 in June and .723 in September against Cliff.
No sorry CC fans – Brother Lee’s got it all over CC this year – no matter how you spin it.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 29, 2008 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um, performance while pitching for the Indians doesn’t get special weight in awards balloting.
by Voltaire on Sep 29, 2008 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It does if you’re and Indians fan.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 29, 2008 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When you decide best pitcher in baseball you give special weight to Tribe pitchers?
by Voltaire on Sep 29, 2008 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely. I always root for my boyz.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 29, 2008 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we need a list of “Chuck’s Rules” to post on this site. Then we can keep track of them when we argue with you.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 30, 2008 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Compared with Cliff, CC pitched an extra month of starts. So he had one bad month? His overall rates absorb it, and he still stacks up with Cliff.
by jhon on Sep 29, 2008 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not bad, not awful, Jason Davis horrible. Nope, I ain’t gonna forget that month just to pump up his stats.
The fact is that Cliff has pitched well every month – no exceptions. CC hasn’t and he was especially bad the first month in Cleveland.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 29, 2008 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In his four worst starts of the season, Cliff Lee gave up 38 hits and 22 runs in 22 2/3 innings. What does it matter that Lee’s four worst starts were spaced out, and Sabathia’s four worst were clumped together at the beginning of the season?
by Peter Bendix on Sep 30, 2008 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The fact that you’re picking out one month is arbitrary. As Peter said, why does it matter if the four starts were all in a row or if they were six weeks apart?
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 30, 2008 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No less arbitrary than everyone focusing on CC’s performance in August and September for another team.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 30, 2008 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
for another team
they’re probably talking about this less over at brew crew ball. i’d go look, but i don’t care to, because, well, i’m an indians fan.
by Brick. on Sep 30, 2008 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, since we’re discussing CC’s Cy Young chances, then that performance is quite relevant.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 30, 2008 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As is his Scott Bailes imitation in April.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 30, 2008 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Once again, Lee had four terrible starts also. They just weren’t all in one month. What is the difference?
We’re talking in circles here.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 30, 2008 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s actually quite clear that Cliff Lee had the better season overall, once you consider that he had better rate stats and didn’t get to pitch half his season in the NL.
It’s interesting, though, that Lee’s first four starts were probably the best four starts any starter had all year, and Sabathia’s first four were probably the worst four starts any starter had all year. And yet, after those four starts, Sabathia clearly outpitched Lee the rest of the way — they allowed the same number of baserunners even though Sabathia pitched an extra four games and 45 more innings, and Sabathia’s ERA was a full run lower, too.
Still, those first four starts count, and on balance, Lee had the better season.
by Jay on Sep 30, 2008 12:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's pretty damn close.
to match CC’s ERA and IP, Lee need 29.7 more innings at a 3.90 ERA. Since that’s way better than replacement level, CC’s been more valuable.
of course ERA is a pretty crappy way to measure performance, and I didn’t account for the easy-ness of league or batters faced, (the second is pretty even for both pitchers over the course of the year, and CC faced the third-easiest opponents of any NL pitcher with at least 90 IP. thanks BPro).
that’s not an exact analysis, but to think one pitcher was way better/more valuable than the other one is folly.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 1, 2008 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That “summary” is ridiculously unfair to your opposition and discredits your argument by making you look like you don’t understand it.
The real reasons I’ve seen presented in this thread:
did not contribute as much to the Brewers as other players did to their respective teams
there is one precedent for voting in a mid-season player. Otherwise, the precedent is clearly to heavily discount such players
by Voltaire on Sep 29, 2008 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
should be more bullet points, i fail at code
by Voltaire on Sep 29, 2008 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m a little sorry you’re bowing out of the thread, Volt, because you’re kind of en fuego here.
I never claimed to be fair to my opposition. Sorry if you find that disappointing.
A “decent guiding principle?” I think not. A simplistic guiding principle, yes. Simple is good as a rule, simplistic is not good as a rule.
C.C.‘s contribution to his team(s) is greater than any other NL pitcher, it just happens that one of those teams (receiving the lesser part of the contribution) was in the AL. The greater part of C.C.’s direct contributions this season was definitely in the NL, however.
The fact that there’s only one precedent only means that it’s a rare situation. Relatively few players get traded mid-season, and extremely few players are pitchers in the midst of a Cy-caliber season. The award only split into two league awards 40 years ago, and you wouldn’t expect this to happen very often. The point is that the voters have deemed it appropriate not only to consider a two-league pitcher for this award — not just to give him a few second- and third-place votes — but to consider him seriously for the top spot on the ballot.
In other words, the voters themselves have set a precedent that C.C. is worth considering. I believe most in this discussion would agree that if it’s appropriate to consider the whole of his accomplishments this season, he should win the award.
by Jay on Sep 30, 2008 12:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think of not only how CC impacted the Brewers, but how he impacted the entire NL. Clearly, the best pitcher in the NL is CC. He was not a last-minute trade – he was the asteroid that sent 16 teams on a different path.
This case shouldn’t be compared to precedent – for or against. It’s a special, once-in-a-lifetime (literally) event, and should be recognized as such. CC for cy young, hands down.
by joeee on Sep 30, 2008 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
best pitcher? how about brad lidge?
the reason you discount brad lidge is the same reason you discount CC’s lack of innings.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 1, 2008 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I discount Brad Lidge because saves are a stupid stat no matter how good he was at converting opportunities into completed stupid stats, and his peripherals aren’t nearly good enough to make up for throwing less than 70 innings (35 BB, 1.226 WHIP).
by FredOx on Oct 2, 2008 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please explain to me how CC not contribute as much to the Brewers as other players did to their teams, and why that’s a valid way of looking at it and not a contortion of the purpose of this award.
We can do contortions all day: in 5 years, who will give a damn about Lincecum’s 08, or Webb’s or Johan’s? Everytime the Brewers’ drive to the postseason is mentioned, CC’s historic effort will be the first thing that’s said about it. Is this a contortion? Yes. Is it as vaild as any of the arguments against CC? Yes, at the least.
CC put together a legendary season. If he isn’t recognized with the highest honor you can give a pitcher, it’s a damned shame.
by jhon on Sep 29, 2008 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll buy this, just as long as every time you talk about the Indians collapse in the play-offs against Boston in ’08 you mention that CC choked in October, when it counted.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 29, 2008 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You already do this. Does it need repetition?
by jhon on Sep 29, 2008 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, that’s the Indian’s fan motto “Never forgive, Never forget”.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 29, 2008 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s petulant gag reflex. The Indian’s fan should (and the good ones do) show a little appreciation.
by joeee on Sep 29, 2008 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, the old ad hominem argument. Not very academic of you Voltaire.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 29, 2008 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which you’ve never used.
I’m bowing out of this part of the thread.
by Voltaire on Sep 29, 2008 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s right, I’ve never used it. You can look it up.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 29, 2008 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not true, but to avoid “eating crow,” I can email you privately examples.
by joeee on Sep 29, 2008 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope put ‘em out there on Front Street. I’ll appologize to any one I’ve ever insulted in such a matter.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 30, 2008 2:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m still waiting joeee.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 30, 2008 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t mean to butt-in, but that’s not ad hominem – or at least one legit interpretation is that your argument is one that you would find on cleveland.com, namely, a terribly-flawed one.
by joeee on Sep 29, 2008 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not saying it’s valid, I’m saying it’s an argument presented in this thread which is more in-depth than Jay’s alleged summary of “You just can’t”.
by Voltaire on Sep 29, 2008 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please explain to me how CC not contribute as much to the Brewers as other players did to their teams
At least for that question, I think I can help.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 29, 2008 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, wait, CC’s behind Ben Sheets - there’s your answer.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
by mauichuck on Sep 29, 2008 8:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s all about innings pitched. The question was his contribution to the Brewers.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 29, 2008 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
uh, is this award for "best story about a pitcher" or best pitcher?
the stories will live no matter where the awards go. but as fans get smarter going forward, i don’t think we want to look back at yet another award that people f’d up.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 1, 2008 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
award implies National League
FWIW, I just fired off an e-mail to Pluto and Hoynes re: whether or not there is any specific wording that suggests a player’s contribution to a league he left should be ignored when voting for an award specific to his new league. I doubt there is, and it doesn’t really affect our argument (we are only suggesting it’s implied, after all), but if wording actually exists that only NL/AL contributions should be considered, that would certainly be interesting and relevant to our discussion.
I actually already heard from Pluto, and his response could be boiled down to: “/shrug.” I expected as much seeing as he doesn’t vote, but I know Hoynes is a card-carrying BBWAA member and I hope he could shed some light on it.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 29, 2008 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hoynes said he doesn’t recall any specific wording like that. He then went on to mention some non sequiturs about CC getting votes for MVP and Cy Young alike. Still, it was nice of them both to get back to me so quick.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 29, 2008 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pluto’s great about responding to e-mails.
by JulioBernazard on Sep 29, 2008 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jay, I’m a little surprised by your argument here. If I’m reading this correctly you’re reasoning that because the BBWAA has done it before it’s suddenly an airtight logical argument? Isn’t that a little bit like, well, if the BBWAA jumped off a bridge…
It’s ridiculous that Gooden didn’t receive a single first place vote that year. Are you okay with Palmeiro winning the Gold Glove in 1999?
I’m sorry, Jay, but just because CC’s situation is comparable to a precedent I think was a mistake doesn’t mean this mistake should be repeated. Like you said, we’re not talking about “will win,” we’re talking about “should win.”
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 29, 2008 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s a good point, but there is a small distinction. The argument against C.C. isn’t that his 2008 performance isn’t deserving, but that somehow his performance doesn’t really count, that he isn’t qualified in some way because he did a good amount of his contributizing in the AL rather than in the NL.
The Sutcliffe precedent goes to whether C.C.‘s case is worth considering at all, not to whether he deserves the award. The rules aren’t specific, so I think precedent is basically all we’ve got in terms of whose performances get considered. There’s an easy case that any ten of us apparently know better than the BBWAA who has had the best season, but we can’t make that same claim with regard to basic eligibility and consideration.
by Jay on Sep 30, 2008 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess what this comes down to is if you and I had votes, we’d split. And maybe there are two BBWAA voters having the same argument.
The thing is I’d be happy if CC won because I’m a big fan and he was pretty awesome in Milwaukee, and I’d like to see good things come his way. I just wouldn’t be able to vote for him because each voter is responsible, I suppose, for crafting his own set of guidelines for what makes a Cy Young winner. Integrity is important here.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 30, 2008 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m sorry, but I find this about as valid as every voter deciding what the word “valuable” means.
If we split this into two separate arguments, eligibility and merit, we’re going to end up deciding that C.C. should be eligible, because it’s unfair and serves no greater purpose to exclude him, and eventually that he’s the best candidate on merit.
I think frankly that it’s confusing people’s better judgment to consider the two matters simultaneously. They are separate questions with (I think) fairly clear answers. In fact, the argument against C.C. on merit is significantly more credible (in my view) than the argument that he doesn’t deserve full-bore consideration.
by Jay on Sep 30, 2008 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m sorry, but I find this about as valid as every voter deciding what the word "valuable" means.
Yeah, that’s fair.
As for the rest of it, I’m just not wrapping my head around it. Maybe I need to read this all again tomorrow.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 30, 2008 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look, Jay, we need to make a distinction. I mentioned this above and you never addressed it: are we talking about what the voters might/can do, or what they should do (in other words, what you or I would do)?
If we are talking about what they might/can do, then everything you said applies. They CAN consider CC, “legally.” They MIGHT, because they have before (once). That seems to be the gist of your post above.
But I have never been talking about what they can/might do, but what they SHOULD do. I thought I made this perfectly clear in my many posts above. They can give the NL Cy Young to CC, but they shouldn’t. And here’s why.
CC Sabathia did not contribute enough to the Milwaukee Brewers – and, therefore, the National League – to merit the award.
Yes, had Sabathia spent the first part of the season with San Diego before being traded to Milwaukee, I’d vote for him. Because his whole season would have been spent in the NL. Yes, Sabathia was instrumental in leading the Brewers to a wildcard berth. But that shouldn’t have any bearing on whether he wins the award – in essence, we shouldn’t punish/reward players for their circumstances. What if Sabathia had been traded to Florida, and the Marlins finished six games out of a playoff spot (even though Sabathia pitched as well as he did with the Brewers)? Or, what if the Blue Jays had narrowly edged the Red Sox for the Wild Card, thanks to heroic pitching of Roy Halladay? Would we think Halladay deserved the Cy over Cliff Lee?
No. It comes down to performance and contribution, not circumstances. CC’s performance was vital for the Brewers because of the circumstances. His contribution is extraordinarily valuable to his team because of the circumstances. But he cannot control the circustmances. Neither can Tim Lincecum.
The bottom line is, sure, the voters are allowed to vote for CC. And they just might – wrong decisions have been made before (see: Colon, Bartolo). But if we are talking about the pitcher who contributed the most to the National League, the discussion should be limited to Johan Santana and Tim Lincecum.
Through no fault of his own, CC shouldn’t win this award. And yeah, that sucks for him. But life isn’t fair, and he’s about to sign a contract for over $100 million. I think he’s okay with that trade-off.
by Peter Bendix on Sep 30, 2008 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You’ve said they shouldn’t vote for him, but you really haven’t said why. I mean, you’ve said they shouldn’t because he didn’t contribute enough to the NL, but you never really explain why that’s a good reason not to vote for him. I mean, you can say that’s the reason, but if it isn’t about who merits the award, and it isn’t about who’s eligible for the award … then what is it about?
Your going with your instinct, which is telling you that there’s an important principle here to uphold, one so important that you’re willing to ignore eligibility and merit in order to get there. But “there’s no there, there.” There is no principle served, therefore there is no reason. Unless you can explain how imposing this standard makes it a better award, you haven’t really given a reason.
What I’m getting at here is, you’re not really challenging your own assumptions about what this award should or shouldn’t be, and if you did, I believe you’d find that those assumptions are resting on nothing at all.
I have mentioned the pivotal nature of C.C.‘s performance in a playoff drive, but to me that’s just icing on the cake. I believe he deserves the award based on his pure dominance in the NL and overall excellence for the entire season. If Halladay had pitched Toronto the playoffs, and if I felt that the differences between his season and Lee’s were insignificant — and I don’t feel that way, by the way — then I might favor Halladay for the Cy Young. Had the Brewers missed the playoffs despite C.C.’s heroics — if he pitches the same way but the Mets have one or two more wins — I would still be saying he deserves the Cy Young.
by Jay on Sep 30, 2008 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The principle here is one of fairness and merit: the idea that the person who contributed the most to the National League deserves the award designed to be given to the guy who contributed the most to the National League.
I don’t care if Joba Chamberlain was the best pitcher in the AL – if he didn’t contribue the most of any pitcher, he wasn’t the most useful. I don’t care if Pitcher X played on a terrible team and therefore his contributions mattered “less,” because he cannot control this and it doesn’t take away from his production.
There’s our fundamental disagreement: you are saying Sabathia deserves the award because is the best pitcher in the NL. I am saying that he does not because he did not contribute the most to the NL. I believe that contribution outweighs “best,” because contribution is all that matters towards winning a baseball game.
Yes, I’d rather have Sabathia than any other NL pitcher. But Sabathia did less to help the Brewers than Santana did to help the Mets. In an award based on past performance, the guy who actually CONTRIBUTED MORE deserves it, not the guy who may BE better.
by Peter Bendix on Sep 30, 2008 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sorry, but the idea you state has nothing to do with fairness and merit.
A season pitched entirely in the NL does not have more inherent merit than an equivalent one split between the leagues. Each performance is equivalently deserving of recognition, and as we’ve already established, they also are equally eligible for this particular award.
Likewise, it is not more fair to a pitcher who played entirely in the NL to give him exclusive claim on the award. It is beneficial to him, but not more fair — rather, it gives him an advantage that he has done nothing to earn, i.e., an unfair advantage.
And also likewise, the pitcher who played entirely in the NL did not CONTRIBUTE more (emphasis yours) than the one who changed leagues. The NL received more of one player’s contribution, but the player himself did not do more contributing.
To give the counter-example, let’s say the two best pitchers in baseball one year are both the same league, which will tend to happen about 50% of the time — let’s say it’s 2005, when Carpenter (NL) and Colon (AL) won it, and there probably were three or four guys in the NL more deserving than Colon. Was it fair that Colon was awarded a Cy Young rather than Oswalt or Pettitte or Willis? No, of course not. Did Colon merit it more than those other pitchers? No again — obviously he didn’t. Did Colon do more CONTRIBUTING? Certainly not.
So are we going to give the AL Cy Young to Oswalt instead of Colon? Again, no — of course we aren’t. But the reason we aren’t isn’t because of merit or fairness or contribution, it’s just that those other guys simply are not eligible for the AL Cy Young. Yet that is not the case with C.C. and the 2008 NL Cy Young.
It’s interesting that you can feel so clear that the player’s team’s quality has nothing to do with merit, yet somehow concoct this bizarre “contributing” reach-around which very obviously has even less to do with merit than whether the pitcher was on a contending team. At least with a pennant race involved, there is some reasonable argument that greater merit was involved. There is no real argument that a mid-season league switch is at all suggestive of a difference in merit.
Your last paragraph is a fascinating little piece of unhinging. First, you start conflating the league argument with the team argument, which you yourself have already discounted. Characterizing the Cy Young as “the award given to the pitcher who contributes the most to his league” is a contortion so obvious that its sheer falseness ought to be plain to anyone. But it’s the end part that fascinates me:
the guy who actually CONTRIBUTED MORE deserves it, not the guy who may BE better.
First, you’re doing the “contributes more” thing, which is factually false and not what you meant to say, and you’re also saying “deserves it” when you really mean “is the guy I think should receive it.” But it’s the very end — “not the guy who may BE better” — that really tells the tale.
You know what you’ve done here? You’ve signed up alongside the “most wins” crowd, using their same argument. Did the voters in 2005 really believe that Colon was a better pitcher than Johan Santana at that time? Definitely not — possibly, if you phrased it that way, “who’s better” or “who do you want pitching game seven tomorrow,” all 28 voters would have picked Santana over Colon. Yet somehow, because of the Wins, these voters convince themselves that in some way, Colon had the better year — that somehow he CONTRIBUTED more because his performances coincided with run and bullpen support and the team having a win at the end of the day, even if Santana was actually the better pitcher, all year.
You are engaging in the very same distortion. What you’re talking about has nothing to do with what a player deserves, or the merit of a pitcher’s season, or how much he has contributed. It has only to do with the circumstances in which he made his contribution, entirely outside of his control — yet, just like the writers, you somehow keep going back to words like “deserve” and “merit.” Your argument really is identical to the “wins” argument. You are saying it’s more fair to give the award to someone who merely had the good fortune to pitch entirely in the NL, that because he did that, his contribution was greater.
I’m sorry, but it doesn’t hold up, not in the least. You are making a distinction that has nothing to do with fairness or merit.
by Jay on Sep 30, 2008 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hm, I interpreted the “may be better” comment as an absolute examination. Like, if for some freak reason the most talented starter on Earth was in AAA and a September callup – he is, let’s say, the best pitcher in the league, with only a month’s worth of starts. Contributed less, but the best pitcher.
by joeee on Sep 30, 2008 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could be, but that’s not the argument we’re having. Peter isn’t arguing that C.C. was only better at the end of the season and wasn’t better overall, over the course of the whole season. I mean, he can argue that, but that doesn’t really speak to whether he deserves full consideration for the NL award.
by Jay on Sep 30, 2008 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the idea that the person who contributed the most to the National League deserves the award designed to be given to the guy who contributed the most to the National League.
I think he’s arguing that CC didn’t do the most damage to NL hitters. I accept his premise but disagree with the conclusion. I think CC DID disturb the NL more than any other pitchers.
by joeee on Sep 30, 2008 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But this is because his contributions took place in the midst of a pennant chase, for which I do not believe CC should be given extra credit.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 1, 2008 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is, more or less, how I meant “may be better.”
by Peter Bendix on Oct 1, 2008 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s like CC’s transfer student. He arrives at the new school as a Sophomore and gets the best grades in the class, consistently and by a longshot. All A+s. He manages the school paper and stars on the baseball and debate teams. He is exceedingly popular.
And when it comes time to graduate, he is denied Valedictorian to a girl who had a B and a couple A-. Because she went to the school all 4 years, she “contributed more to the school” than CC.
by jhon on Sep 30, 2008 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Listen, you can make that example if you want, but Santana and Lincecum were not “B and a couple A-” pitchers this year.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 30, 2008 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh come on, you know what I mean. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if Sabathia’s stats—his actual, mater-of-fact performances—weren’t so damned good. I’ll leave out the /particularly in the NL/ part, because that’s our hang-up. I believe that CC had, statistically speaking, a better season than the other two, albeit by a razor thin margin. On top of that, all of the usual qualifiers (making the postseason, pitching more innings, being more “dominant”, whatever other adjectives that are now trendy) support CCs case except for this arbitrary one that declares that he did less, cumulatively speaking, for any one team than another. Throw that all out, he deserves it. Leave it in, he still deserves it.
by jhon on Sep 30, 2008 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then we disagree. Nothing wrong with that. Lincecum deserves it.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 30, 2008 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is really a disagreement about axioms: is the award about contribution to the NL (as Peter is arguing), or is it about the best contributor who pitched for the NL. It can’t entirely be the latter (I don’t think), because by that logical definition, a pitcher who got traded on August 30th from the AL to the NL, and pitched 4 starts for his new team could win the NL Cy, which it seems Jay would have to get behind based on his arguments so far.
At the same time, I don’t want to make it entirely the former, because I tend to value rate stats more than counting stats, generally speaking, and “quantity of contribution” is like a counting stat. “Having split your season between two leagues” is one of those things that’s beyond the player’s control.
It seems to me the thing to do is to treat the Cy somewhat like an ERA leader: it’s a rate stat, but you have to have a big enough sample size to qualify. What’s a big enough sample size? Well, rather than put a hard limit on it (like they do for the ERA crown), what about treating it like a statistical inference: namely, the better the number, the smaller the needed sample size. Extrapolating CC’s NL performance to an entire season, how confident can we be that his numbers would have been better than anyone else’s? The question is what you actually do with his AL numbers. I’m pretty confident that however you answer that question, we could say with pretty decent confidence that CC would still have been the best pitcher in the NL, had he pitched a full season.
This method wouldn’t definitively disqualify a guy who made 4 starts in his new league, of course, as it would depend heavily on what you decided to do with the AL performance data. But it seems more reasonable to me than taking either hard-line position…
by Logodaedalus on Sep 30, 2008 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Production vs "best"
Let’s use an analogy: Let’s say everything in the AL happens in the exact same way that it did this year, except that Adam Miller does not get hurt, and receives a call to the Indians on August 15. Miller is inserted into the rotation and proceeds to absolutely dominate American League hitters, proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is the best pitcher in the AL. Everyone agrees that if you had to play a one-game playoff, you’d pick Adam Miller to start over any other AL pitcher. Thus, Adam Miller is the best pitcher in the AL.
The problem, of course, is that Miller didn’t come to the majors until August 15. As such, he had less of an impact upon his team – and, therefore, the league – than Cliff Lee (and Roy Halladay, and Jon Lester). Who deserves the Cy Young?
I believe the guy who contributed the most to his league deserves the award from that league. While Miller is certainly eligible for the award, his winning it would not be in the spirit of the award.
Returning to an example used by Jay: sure, Roy Oswalt was better than Bartolo Colon in 2005. But Roy Oswalt didn’t contribute anything to the AL. Therefore, he didn’t deserve an award entitled "American League Cy Young." The New York Yankees were inarguably better than the Los Angeles Dodgers this year – does that mean that they deserve to win the NL West? Of course not.
It’s interesting that you can feel so clear that the player’s team’s quality has nothing to do with merit, yet somehow concoct this bizarre "contributing" reach-around which very obviously has even less to do with merit than whether the pitcher was on a contending team. At least with a pennant race involved, there is some reasonable argument that greater merit was involved. There is no real argument that a mid-season league switch is at all suggestive of a difference in merit.
This is simply untrue. Nowhere did I state that contributing "very obviously (emphasis yours) has even less to do with merit than whether the pitcher was on a contending team." In fact, I’ve consistently stated the exact opposite: whether a pitcher was on a contending team has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCY in the discussion about whether he should win the Cy Young. As I previously stated, when you’re handing out individual awards the performance of teammates should be irrelevant. Grady Sizemore contributed JUST AS MUCH to the Indians as Dustin Pedroia contributed to the Red Sox (well, actually, Sizemore contributed even more), and his contributions shouldn’t be negated – nor should Pedroia’s be heightened – because of the context in which they occurred. Yes, Pedroia’s contribution meant more because it helped the Red Sox get into the postseason. But that doesn’t mean that Pedroia should be rewarded for this, when he contributed less to the Red Sox than Sizemore contributed to the Indians.
Characterizing the Cy Young as "the award given to the pitcher who contributes the most to his league" is a contortion so obvious that its sheer falseness ought to be plain to anyone.
How is this a contortion? You call it a contortion because you disagree with the fundamental premise. You think that the award should go to the guy who is the best pitcher in the league at the end of the season, regardless of how many innings he pitched in that league. I disagree. But my statement about contributing the most to his league is not a contortion.
You know what you’ve done here? You’ve signed up alongside the "most wins" crowd, using their same argument.
You’re actually kind of right on this one. Except not in the way that you stated. Voters voted for Bartolo Colon because of his win total, believing that the amount of wins he had meant that he contributed the most that season. Of course, that is so very wrong – wins are hardly a good indicator of how much a pitcher contributed. So yes, I am subscribing to a somewhat similar premise: that the pitcher who contributed the most should win the award. The difference – and boy, it’s a big difference – is how I evaluate/define contribution. Voters often define contribution as win total. I do not.
What you’re talking about has nothing to do with what a player deserves, or the merit of a pitcher’s season, or how much he has contributed. It has only to do with the circumstances in which he made his contribution, entirely outside of his control — yet, just like the writers, you somehow keep going back to words like "deserve" and "merit."
This has nothing to do with what a player deserves. Rather, it’s the spirit of the award – what the award was meant to recognize. CC Sabathia probably deserves a Cy Young – if he had spent a longer time in either league, he’d probably win that league’s Cy Young. Sucks for him. But he shouldn’t win the NL Cy Young award, which is meant to recognize the pitcher who contributed the most to the NL.
You are saying it’s more fair to give the award to someone who merely had the good fortune to pitch entirely in the NL, that because he did that, his contribution was greater.
YES! I am! Because that’s the way the awards are designed. You can take issue with that if you want – that’s not what we’re discussing. Johan Santana’s contribution WAS greater to his team – which plays in the NL – than Sabathia’s was to HIS team that plays in the NL. Should there be two Cy Young awards, awarded to the two best pitchers in baseball? What if Roy Halladay was clearly inferior to Cliff Lee, yet clearly superior to anyone else in baseball? Should Halladay get that second Cy Young? What about the New York Yankees, who were clearly superior to the Los Angeles Dodgers? Should they replace the Dodgers in the playoffs? These are interesting questions, but they are not relevant to this discussion because that is not how awards and playoff spots are currently defined.
It sucks for CC, but them’s the rules. There are two Cy Youngs – one for the AL and one for the NL. You can argue that your interpretation is that the award should be given to the best pitcher, in each league, on the day the season ends. I counter that this logic has a fatal flaw: namely, what if Sabathia had been traded on July 31 instead of the middle of June. Using your logic, CC would be the best pitcher in the NL at the end of the season, and should therefore win the award.
Therefore, the alternative is to look at how much every pitcher contributed while in the NL or AL. That doesn’t automatically rule Sabathia out – rather, we simply have to weigh the effect of the extra innings that Lincecum and Johan pitched in comparison to Sabathia – much like we weighed Beckett and Sabathia’s innings difference last year, or Halladay and Lee’s innings difference this year. And, in my opinion, CC’s performance over 133 innings is not enough to outweigh Johan’s performance over 234 innings (or Lincecum’s performance over 227 innings).
by Peter Bendix on Oct 1, 2008 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If nothing else, I’m going to get you to distinguish merit from eligibility before this is over with … I’m doing all this for you, you know.
Everyone agrees that if you had to play a one-game playoff, you’d pick Adam Miller to start over any other AL pitcher. Thus, Adam Miller is the best pitcher in the AL.
Massive straw man here. I already stated, it’s not about who’s the best at the end of the season, it’s about who’s the best over the course of the whole season.
Sabathia spent enough time in the NL, and was so much better than the next-best pitcher, that he led the league in complete games and was a full run lower in ERA. He was 9th in the league in PRC, and only 30% behind the leader, despite having strated 50% fewer games. That he was able to break into any of the leaderboards in only half his starts is a testament to his dominance — and that he made a profound enough impact on the NL to be worthy of consideration for the NL award.
Getting back to your Atom-on-August-15 question, could any pitcher make that kind of impact in only six weeks? I don’t see how. Maybe if he pitched nine complete game shutouts. But even that wouldn’t change the fact that Atom could not possibly pass the best-complete-season test, because he wasn’t even a major league pitcher. C.C. was a major league pitcher, so a fair comparison can be made of his full season against the others. We already know that he crushes them in the NL-only comparison, but he needs to be at least tied if not better for the fulll season as well.
Anyway, the point is that several days ago, I laid out two criteria that have to be passed, and C.C. passes both of them, and Atom-on-August-15 would have great trouble passing either one.
sure, Roy Oswalt was better than Bartolo Colon in 2005. But Roy Oswalt didn’t contribute anything to the AL. Therefore, he didn’t deserve an award entitled “American League Cy Young.”
Again, you’re conflating eligibility and merit. Whether Oswalt deserves that award is immaterial, because he’s not eligible for it. Did he deserve it as much as Colon? Hell, yes — neither one of them was the best pitcher in the AL, anyway. But he wasn’t eligible, so he wasn’t considered.
My point, ultimately, is that first you determine eligibility. Then, you determine whether someone merits full consideration — this is where we weed out Atom-on-August-15 and just about every pitcher with fewer than 180 IP. Then, and only then, do you ask the question, who was the best pitcher?
Oswalt’s situation isn’t anything like Sabathia’s. Oswalt could not be considered for that award, because he’s not eligible. Sabathia can be considered for this award, he is completely eligible. You are simply choosing not to consider him for reasons that are arbitrary, i.e., having nothing to do with merit.
Nowhere did I state that contributing "very obviously (emphasis yours) has even less to do with merit than whether the pitcher was on a contending team.
That isn’t what I meant. You invented the bizarre “contributing to his league” contortion. I’m the one saying that it “very obviously has even less to do with merit,” etc.
How is this a contortion? You call it a contortion because you disagree with the fundamental premise.
No, I call it a contortion because it’s awkward, and it’s designed to suit only this discussion, and outside of this discussion, nobody would ever describe the award this way. Let me take you through it:
1. The Cy Young Award, in the absence of more specific criteria, is understood to be an award given every year to the “best pitcher” in each league.
2. “Best pitcher” is only ever defined in one of two ways:
a. The pitcher who gives the best pitching performances.
The pitcher who most contributes to his team(s) winning games and/or pennants.c. All statistical measures ultimately are trying to describe (a) or (b), so that even those who disagree bitterly on how to judge this would agree that those two things are what they’re trying to judge.
3. Outside of this discussion, if you asked someone, what does “best pitcher” mean, nobody would ever answer, “The pitcher who contributes the most to his league.”
And that’s what makes it a contortion. I’m not calling it a contortion because of our disagreement. I’m calling it a contortion because it doesn’t stand on its own, outside of this disagreement. It’s a flotation device you’ve been holding onto, since you realized your logical ship was sinking.
You think that the award should go to the guy who is the best pitcher in the league at the end of the season, regardless of how many innings he pitched in that league.
I hope it’s now clear, that is not what I think. I think the award must be given both on the basis of a full season of achievement and to the best overall pitcher in the league. C.C. wins on both counts — no NL pitcher was better in the NL, and no NL pitcher had a better overall season — and that’s why he should get the hardware. It is an unusual case.
Rather, it’s the spirit of the award – what the award was meant to recognize.
Oh, really? And what is your basis for “the spirit of the award” and “what the award was meant to recognize?”
Because that’s the way the awards are designed. You can take issue with that if you want – that’s not what we’re discussing.
Again, what’s your basis for this? The Cy Young Award was originally given to only one MLB pitcher, period. When it was split 40 years ago, how do you know that they clearly felt that a pitcher in C.C.’s circumstance should not be considered?
The “spirit” you are talking about is completely invented in your own head. It has nothing to do with eligibility or the rules. It has nothing to do with precedent. It has nothing to do with merit.
What, then, has it to do with? And the answer is: “The spirit!” And where is the spirit? Only in your head. There is no argument for it, it’s just what you think “the spirit” is.
Should there be two Cy Young awards, awarded to the two best pitchers in baseball?
Nah, because nobody would care. But we’re not talking about “should be,” we’re talking about “is.”
Should Halladay get that second Cy Young?
No, because he’s not eligible. C.C. is eligible for the NL Cy Young.
What about the New York Yankees, who were clearly superior to the Los Angeles Dodgers? Should they replace the Dodgers in the playoffs?
No, because the Yankees are not eligible for an NL playoff spot. C.C. is eligible for the NL Cy Young.
You can argue that your interpretation is that the award should be given to the best pitcher, in each league, on the day the season ends.
Again, no, that is not what I have argued, ever, at any point.
I counter that this logic has a fatal flaw: namely, what if Sabathia had been traded on July 31 instead of the middle of June. Using your logic, CC would be the best pitcher in the NL at the end of the season, and should therefore win the award
What I would say in that case is that the standard, already ridiculously high for a half-season in the NL, would have to be even higher for one-third of a season. Does he have an ERA under 1.00? Does he still lead the league in complete games? Does he do some other ridiculous Feat of Strength, like pitching three no-hitters?
I’ll give you a real example of this, Randy Johnson in 1998. He was so ridiculously dominant after being traded around July 31 — even better than C.C. this year — that you would be tempted to consider him. It’s not clear that he was quite dominant enough to consider on the basis of one-third of a season — at that point, it almost has to be the Gagne standard. But what is clear is that his entire season wasn’t good enough to merit serious consideration — he wasn’t even one of the best ten pitchers in the majors, let alone one of the best two.
I’ll tell you this, though. Sabathia in 2008 was better than Sutcliffe in 1984 when he won it. Sabathia was better in the NL than Sutcliffe, contributed more to his NL team despite having fewer starts in the NL, and by far had a better overall season. And Sutcliffe won. I’m not even saying that he deserved to win, but he at least deserved serious consideration. C.C. deserves no less.
in my opinion, CC’s performance over 133 innings is not enough to outweigh Johan’s performance over 234 innings
I agree with that. The difference, ultimately, is that you feel that C.C. deserves absolutely no consideration for a very strong first half, even in light of that fact that he was far better than Lincecum or Santana in the second half. I disagree with that strongly — I think there’s no basis in logic, the rules or precedent for total blindness to C.C.’s strong first half against major league (and occasionally even National League) hitters.
I know that you disagree. What I’d like for you to answer, at some point, is, other than that little voice in your head telling you what’s “right,” is there really any reason for you to feel that way?
by Jay on Oct 4, 2008 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sabathia spent enough time in the NL
…
What I would say in that case is that the standard, already ridiculously high for a half-season in the NL, would have to be even higher for one-third of a season.
What’s “enough”? Do you have a hard cutoff, or does it, as you suggest in the second quote above, interact with the quality of the performance in the relevant league? If it’s the latter, it sounds an awful lot like what I suggested a few comments up. Do you agree with that system? At times, it sounds like that’s more or less what you’re advocating; at others, it sounds like you want to establish some hard cutoff for eligibility and then look at the whole year’s performance.
Another dilemma that it seems none of us have devised a way of avoiding: if it’s possible to win the Cy Young based on half a season (or less), what’s to stop one guy from winning both leagues’ awards in the same year? Should that be allowed? I can think of only… three reasonable ways to prevent this: a) give him the award for the league he performed better in (and simply stipulate that the other league’s award has to go to the next best guy), b) give him the award for the league he pitched relatively better in (either further removed from his closest competition, or higher above league average), or c) stipulate that the pitcher has to have pitched more than half the season in the relevant league. You could also insist that a pitcher can’t be awarded the Cy for a league he’s no longer in, but you probably don’t want to do that, in case a guy is totally dominant through August, but is traded at the last minute to the other league. Or maybe you do. I dunno.
by Logodaedalus on Oct 6, 2008 3:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you successfully separate eligibility from merit, your scenario is easy – the pitcher who dominates through August can’t win that award, because he’s not eligible. He would be eligible for the award in the league he gets traded to; whether he deserves it (the merit half of the analysis) is a totally separate question.
by FredOx on Oct 6, 2008 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, but that’s what I’m asking: what exactly is the criterion for eligibility? On the one hand it seems like it should interact with merit, but on the other it might be useful to have some initial “hard” criterion. It sounds like you want to strictly determine eligibility by saying the pitcher has to end the season in the relevant league. But I’m wondering if a pitcher who dominates for the vast majority of the season in one league and then leaves shouldn’t be able to win the award in the league he started in. Sounds like you don’t think he should be eligible.
by Logodaedalus on Oct 6, 2008 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe under the rules it is possible for one person to win both Cy Young awards. I would support a rule change to forbid it, but as a practical matter, it’s never going to happen anyway.
As for “spent enough time,” just read the whole sentence: “Sabathia spent enough time in the NL, and was so much better than the next-best pitcher, that he led the league in complete games and was a full run lower in ERA.”
In other words, he was in the league long enough and was so dominant that he ended up having a greater impact on the NL pennant race than almost any other player. He contributed 6.7 wins above replacement, more than all but a handful of NL pitchers, and he did it in half the time.
See my response to Bendix below …
by Jay on Oct 6, 2008 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A rule change? Why not have a rule that says Martians can’t win it, either? That’s a harsh rule to have. If it were possible for somebody to win both Cys, you’d want to exclude him by fiat? That’s cold.
In the agate type, a rule that says: No player may win more than one Cy Young award per season. Why? It would be like formulating a rule that says a player may not win both the MVP and Cy Young in the same season.
by odradek on Oct 7, 2008 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d be fine with that, too.
If you want to talk rule changes, it’s a whole other discussion, but like most diehard fans, I’m totally sure that my rules would be a lot better than the current ones.
I personally would rather change the rules for postseason berths.
by Jay on Oct 7, 2008 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I could change one rule, it would be to reinstitute the GWRBI.
by odradek on Oct 7, 2008 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, I haven’t quite written my response to Bendix below, but I will later.
by Jay on Oct 7, 2008 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you, Jay, for the response. I sincerely enjoy debating this – and many other points – with you. You make me challenge my own beliefs and assumptions, and even though it can be frustrating at times (and, honestly, I sometimes wish that you would ease up on the condescension), you are one of the smartest and best debating people I’ve "met" on the internet.
That being said, I think some of our argument is us simply talking past each other. Namely, I do not disagree that CC Sabathia is eligible for this award. He is eligible, by the definitions of the rule. I don’t think I ever stated that he wasn’t technically eligible.
Nor did I state that I wouldn’t consider him. I think where we disagree is the following:
I would consider Sabathia in equal relation to every other National League pitcher. I, in other words, wouldn’t discount the fact that he only entered the NL on June 15, nor would I consider his contribution to the AL in my decision.
"I disagree with that strongly — I think there’s no basis in logic, the rules or precedent for total blindness to C.C.’s strong first half against major league (and occasionally even National League) hitters."
First of all, I agree that there is no basis in the rules for this. Additionally, you cite precedent – Rick Sutcliff. That is true, but that only speaks to the rules aspect, not the question of whether Sabathia should receive this award. Sutcliff received it, so Sabathia can too. But Sutcliff probably shouldn’t have, and just because Sutcliff did doesn’t mean Sabathia should.
However, your point that my sentiment has no basis in logic is where you argument comes unhinged. You state that Sabathia has spent "enough" time in the NL. At what point has a pitcher done "enough" to warrant winning the NL Cy Young? I say that Sabathia didn’t do enough, because his 133 innings were outweighed by Johan’s 234, even though Sabathia was more dominant in his time in the NL. You say that you agree, but that we should take into consideration Sabathia’s time with the Indians; and when we take the whole picture into consideration, Sabathia’s season merits the award.
Are you willing to say that this is the case even if Sabathia was traded on July 31? Or if Sabathia was traded in a waiver deal in August? Let’s say Sabathia was just-as-dominant but was traded a month later, and therefore only pitched 91 innings with a 1.58 ERA (which is the actual amount that he pitched and his actual ERA in August and September). Would you still vote for him? What about if he was (somehow) acquired in a waiver wire deal, and pitched only 57 innings (which he did from August 24 through the end of the season). Would you still vote for him?
What about the AL Cy Young award – should he win that? Taking the whole picture into consideration, Sabathia has a 2.70 ERA in 253 innings, while Cliff Lee has a 2.54 ERA over 223 innings. Sure, Sabathia pitched 130 innings in an easier league, but Lee pitched in a home ballpark that was third-toughest to hit homers in this year. Plus, Lee had nine starts against the National League (and he faced San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Cincinnati!) or the Royals. And if pitching matchups shouldn’t be relevant to the Cy discussion – otherwise, Roy Halladay would have a lot stronger of a case – then doesn’t Sabathia at least deserve consideration for the AL Cy Young as well?
If you’re going to argue that Sabathia should win the award due to his brilliance over 130 innings in the NL, that’s fine. I disagree, but I understand the argument. However, you’re arguing that Sabathia should win because we should take the whole picture into consideration. If you’re going to make this argument, you have to take it to the logical extensions that I brought up above. And I believe this is where it breaks down.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 6, 2008 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In fairness to Lee, the Royals hit left-handed pitching very well this year
by Roger Dorn on Oct 6, 2008 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate these awards for this reason. In twenty years, I want to be able to look back and figure out which player had the best season. I don’t care which team he was on or what league he played in. I don’t care who is more valuable to their team, I want to know who was the best player in the league, who was the best pitcher in the league.
I don’t know if this supports or hurts the argument for CC, but I would give him the Cy. He was dominant like no other pitcher this season including Cliff, the moment he stepped on the field for the Brewers.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 29, 2008 6:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you. Plus it’s a cool story, and there’s the Sutcliffe precedent. Sabathia wins back to back Cys in different leagues. Kind of like Frank Robinson.
by odradek on Sep 29, 2008 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
F—K ALEXEI RAMIREZ
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on Sep 29, 2008 7:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
F__K Gary Glover
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Sep 29, 2008 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have decided that I am rooting for the White Sox today and Twins tomorrow. Sox miss the playoffs, Tigers finish in outright last. Win-win.
by Voltaire on Sep 29, 2008 7:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I can get behind this.
God, that sixth inning was total EPIC FAIL, wasn’t it?
--
In Cliff we trust.
by vbc3 on Sep 29, 2008 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There have been dozens of things to root for since the Tribe fell out of it. It seems like a good portion of them are coming true.
by jhon on Sep 29, 2008 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s kind of awkward if you’re the Tigers. You’ve already fired two coaches and announced that you won’t be picking up your shortstop’s option. But, um, suit up guys, you still have to play out this last game. Go calm Garcia down and tell him to trust his breaking stuff, Unemployed Guy.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 29, 2008 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How was NYM’s collapse “historic”? Has no team ever lost a postseason berth in the final game of a season for two consecutive seasons?
by JulioBernazard on Sep 29, 2008 10:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s because they followed “all-time worst” with “yet another (but not as bad)” that it’s viewed as an extension.
by Voltaire on Sep 29, 2008 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m almost positive no team has ever lost a postseason berth on the final game of the year AT HOME in consecutive seasons.
Either way, it’s a true tragedy. Or comedy, depending on who you root for (I vote the latter).
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 29, 2008 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
NYM had at least a 3.5 game lead with 17 to go two years in a row and didn’t make the playoffs either year. That has never happened before, according to the NY radio crew from Sunday’s ninth inning.
by FredOx on Sep 29, 2008 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, that part is unprecedented.
It may also be that how Julio phrased it is also unprecedented, but it doesn’t have to be unprecedented to be historic.
I mean, it sure as hell hasn’t happened much.
by Jay on Sep 30, 2008 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
dublin has got to be the closest international airport in europe, right?
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Sep 29, 2008 11:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
more expensive than dublin
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Sep 30, 2008 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
just trying to get across the pond the cheapest way possible and letting cheap european carriers take me the rest of the way
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Sep 30, 2008 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Although Dublin is close, i’m not sure it’s going to get you the cheapest flight. I’d look at Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris and Madrid for cheap flights.
by APV on Sep 30, 2008 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
nope, dublin is cheapest from O’Hare
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Sep 30, 2008 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i don’t know what the hell you guys are arguing about
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Sep 30, 2008 6:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
There was this fat guy. Like orca fat. Used to pitch for us. Long story.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 30, 2008 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Sep 30, 2008 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i’m way bored without baseball
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Sep 30, 2008 7:50 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Twins down 1-0 with 3 batting outs to go
by Logodaedalus on Sep 30, 2008 9:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Big difference between Wedge and Gardenhire: Could you imagine Wedge using Majares—a rookie in AA three weeks ago—the way Gardenhire used him tonight?
Instead, the Indians get Rincon or Donnelly.
by odradek on Sep 30, 2008 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You mean, the way Wedge used Jensen and Asdrubal a year ago?
by Jay on Sep 30, 2008 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, although they had more IPs and PAs than Majares. But what happened this year? Maybe Meloan’s arm was being protected.
In a must-win game in the eighth inning would Wedge use a rookie? When Perez and Betancourt were available?
by odradek on Sep 30, 2008 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he’s put young guys into important roles pretty quickly on the whole. Remember, Perez didn’t even start 2007 in the majors. He also moved Fausto into an 8th inning role pretty quickly in 2006, and Lord knows he gave Ferdie Cabrera a dozen auditions.
by Jay on Sep 30, 2008 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perez is a good example, but I think Gardenhire does a better job handling his pen—his lineup, too—because he weaves in inexperienced guys in tough situations. Breslow would sit for a fortnight for Wedge while Gardenhire would take a chance with him. Typically you can anticipate Wedge’s bullpen calls, while Gardenhire can surprise, as he did tonight with Majares. As seen with Wedge’s overuse of Kobayashi and his reliance on Donnelly and Rincon—and his neglect of other pitchers—Wedge is formulaic when calling to the pen.
by odradek on Sep 30, 2008 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember a few times this season, when the Indians were either up comfortgably or out of the game, that I thought, This might be a good time to give Mastny an inning, and Wedge would go to his rote selection.
by odradek on Sep 30, 2008 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gardenhire’s bullpen use is remarkably similar to what you criticize in Wedge. Last year, the Tribe had four relievers with more than 57 IP, and five with more than 49 appearances. This year, the Twins have four relievers with more than 62 IP, and five with more than 47 appearances. Yes, the Twins have worked a September callup into their own version of the Circus of Trout, but all Mijares has really done is replace Brian Bass, who threw 68 innings before being shipped off to Baltimore. Mijares’ appearance was hardly a surprise – since his callup, he’s missed no more than 2 games in a row. Gardenhire even has his own pitchers he neglects – just look at the gamelogs of Korecky and Breslow.
by FredOx on Oct 1, 2008 12:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s in the vernacular now, no question.
by afh4 on Oct 1, 2008 1:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not defending Wedge but Gardenhire’s lineup management is terrible. Just horrendous. Look at his use of catcher’s when Mauer sits. Or Nick Punto’s 2007. Or how many games Carlos Gomez led off for no apparent reason.
by afh4 on Oct 1, 2008 1:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, I give. Maybe Gardenhire isn’t a good example. And Jay’s point that Majares 2008 is roughly equivalent to Lewis 2007 is valid.
by odradek on Oct 1, 2008 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, that picture of Ozzie doesn’t seem very appropriate.
by afh4 on Oct 1, 2008 1:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Dammit. Do we have any file footage of the Red Sox losing and Josh Beckett failing?
by NickFantana on Oct 1, 2008 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like most tales as compelling as this, there’s a back story. Sabathia is not just competitive but proud. That pride was mocked last October when, after a Cy Young season, he got nervous and allowed 15 earned runs and 13 walks in 15 1/3 ugly postseason innings. “I think you’ll see a more calmer version of me,” said Sabathia. “Last year I went into the playoffs thinking I had to throw no-hitters. That’s why you saw me pressing a lot.” Sabathia claims he’s not purging the past. He just loves the Brewers like family now. Milwaukee is nuts over the Crew in a way Cleveland wasn’t over the Indians. So he wants to bring everybody in Wisconsin a beer and a world title. Even so, erasing last October must be on his mind.
From an article by Thomas Boswell in today’s Washington Post.
by odradek on Oct 1, 2008 11:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That sentence is insulting. Obviously not a quote or even an inference to something CC said.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 2, 2008 8:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Milwaukee is nuts over the Crew in a way that Cleveland wasn’t over the Indians”
by Roger Dorn on Oct 2, 2008 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He must mean for this season. Still a little unfair though. Our support was pretty good in the games I attended, despite our being out of it all.
by jhon on Oct 2, 2008 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
C.C’s first four starts helped annihilate much of my enthusiasm.
by JulioBernazard on Oct 3, 2008 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that’s a lame sentence. But I read they were having a lakefront rally in Milwaukee. They haven’t been to the postseason since the days of Gorman Thomas and Cecil Cooper, so maybe fans are more enthusiastic than the typical Cleveland fan, who seems to have an ambivalent relationship with his team. Dolan, you make me puke, and all that.
by odradek on Oct 2, 2008 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rally Monday 2007, one year and one day ago. We had Michael Stanley, so we win.
by FredOx on Oct 2, 2008 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Milwaukee had Reckless Kelly performing at the Miller Lite Oasis.
by odradek on Oct 2, 2008 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like Fred said, we had Michael Stanley, so we win.
by woodsmeister on Oct 2, 2008 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If only we’d made him love Cleveland more! Then he would have wanted to bring us a world title too.
by cleveland teamer on Oct 2, 2008 9:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
(should be a reply to odradek)
by cleveland teamer on Oct 2, 2008 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he paid for an entire full page add in the paper. what more do you want?
by Brick. on Oct 2, 2008 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I was joking.
He just loves the Brewers like family now.
That line is what I find most absurd about that story.
by cleveland teamer on Oct 2, 2008 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
rats. I pull that move all the time in real life, but apparently I haven’t learned the art of detecting it on LGT.
by cleveland teamer on Oct 2, 2008 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That shirt is NOT black.
Am I doing it right?
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Oct 2, 2008 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This confirms Chuck’s take, as far as I’m concerned. And he admits he was pressing last October. And Thomas Boswell says he was “ugly” last postseason. Q.E.D.
by odradek on Oct 2, 2008 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And a beer, for each and every Clevelander, man, woman and child.
by odradek on Oct 2, 2008 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Let's Go Tribe!
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Sweet Baboo
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
