Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Warfish

deGrom Wins Cy Young

Recommended Posts

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2806073-mlb-cy-young-award-2018-al-and-nl-winners-voting-results-and-reaction?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

Quote

 

Jacob deGrom: MLB-best 1.70 ERA. Mets went 14-18 in his starts & he went 10-9 

Lucas Giolito: 6.13 ERA, worst in MLB. He went 10-13 & White Sox were 14-18 in his starts 

That’s the same number of pitcher wins and same team record... for the best and worst pitchers in MLB

 

Says everything you need to know when the Cy Young Award winner produced the exact same result that matters (wins) as the worst pitcher in MLB. :rolleyes:

#ScherzerWasRobbed!

Maz started one more game, had one more complete game pitched (2 vs. 1), threw more innings (220 vs. 217), allowed less hits (150 vs. 152), way more strikeouts (300! vs. 269), and was 18-7 ffs.

deGrom had a better ERA (1.70 vs 2.53) and allowed less Runs (66 vs. 48), less walks (46 vs 51) and less HR's (23 vs 10).

Well, we'll see what happens next year.

  • Butt Fumble 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great Mets news for change. Usually pitchers get dinged for the lousy support that they have no control over. Seaver should have won several years that he didn't because of it.

Made my day

The ERA and runs over Scherzer justifies it for me. Wins means nothing now that CG's are a thing of the past

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wins in baseball are a team stat and individual awards shouldn’t be based on wins. Scherzer was great, but DeGrom was better. It’s an award for best pitcher. Not most wins. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He certainly deserved this The lack of support caused the low amount of wins. The one bright spot in a dismal season congrats Jacob sign the man!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Warfish said:

deGrom had a better ERA (1.70 vs 2.53) and allowed less Runs (66 vs. 48), less walks (46 vs 51) and less HR's (23 vs 10).

Yet you think Scherzer was robbed.  OK. 

deGrom's performance was reminiscent of Steve Carlton's historic 1972 season for the 59-win Phillies.  It can be extremely frustrating pitching for such a bad team, but deGrom brought it every night, knowing he had to be perfect, and that still might not be enough to get the team a W. 

The Scherzer supporters can go kick rocks.  This was deGrom's year. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Yet you think Scherzer was robbed.  OK. 

deGrom's performance was reminiscent of Steve Carlton's historic 1972 season for the 59-win Phillies.  It can be extremely frustrating pitching for such a bad team, but deGrom brought it every night, knowing he had to be perfect, and that still might not be enough to get the team a W. 

The Scherzer supporters can go kick rocks.  This was deGrom's year. 

Of course I think Scherzer should have won.  A .500 pitcher is simply never, ever, the best pitcher in MLB no matter what his stats.  and as shown, for all his flash he only produced (in terms of what counts) about as well as one of the worst pitchers in MLB.  Sorry, that's not Cy Young worthy.  

Sorry your team sucks horribly, but such is life.  deGrom wasn't materially better than Scherzer, Scherzer is a lock HOF'er, hit the magic 300 strikeout level, was generally just as good in almost every way as deGrom, and oh yeah, won 18 games.  For a barely .500 team.  Notice, no excuses re: Scherzer playing for a bad team, even though the Nats were in fact a quite bad team.

All this being given, yes, Scherzer was clearly the winner IMO.  But no shock, the shiny new kid (in the big media market) got gifted the award because of his ERA and pretty much his ERA alone. 

Ok.  It must be accepted, but doesn't have to be liked or agreed with.  I know sad Mets fans need something, anything, to cling on to....sad this undeserved award is all you really have.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you operate under the assumptions that:

1) how any pitcher performs on the mound is very separate from how his teammates perform at the plate
2) a pitcher's job is to not allow the other team to score runs so that his teammates don't have to work as hard at the plate to win games

then, if pitcher A allows less runs, walks, HRs, and has a significantly better ERA than player B, then player A was the better pitcher.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Warfish said:

Of course I think Scherzer should have won.  A .500 pitcher is simply never, ever, the best pitcher in MLB no matter what his stats.  and as shown, for all his flash he only produced (in terms of what counts) about as well as one of the worst pitchers in MLB.  Sorry, that's not Cy Young worthy.  

Sorry your team sucks horribly, but such is life.  deGrom wasn't materially better than Scherzer, Scherzer is a lock HOF'er, hit the magic 300 strikeout level, was generally just as good in almost every way as deGrom, and oh yeah, won 18 games.  For a barely .500 team.  Notice, no excuses re: Scherzer playing for a bad team, even though the Nats were in fact a quite bad team.

All this being given, yes, Scherzer was clearly the winner IMO.  But no shock, the shiny new kid (in the big media market) got gifted the award because of his ERA and pretty much his ERA alone. 

Ok.  It must be accepted, but doesn't have to be liked or agreed with.  I know sad Mets fans need something, anything, to cling on to....sad this undeserved award is all you really have.

 

1) Wins don't matter for Cy Young, nor should they.  Felix Hernandez once won the award with 13 wins, so it's not like there isn't precedence. 

2) You're not sorry our team sucks so badly.  You used this thread as an opportunity to try to preemptively steal any joy Mets fans are getting out of deGrom winning this deserving award.  You failed at that. 

3) "Gifted the award."  After a 1.70 ERA.  In an era when balls are flying out of the yard, he puts up dead ball numbers, and he was "gifted" the award.  OK. 

4) You're a condescending prick, and I don't care if I get banned for saying it. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Warfish said:

Of course I think Scherzer should have won.  A .500 pitcher is simply never, ever, the best pitcher in MLB no matter what his stats.  and as shown, for all his flash he only produced (in terms of what counts) about as well as one of the worst pitchers in MLB.  Sorry, that's not Cy Young worthy.  

Sorry your team sucks horribly, but such is life.  deGrom wasn't materially better than Scherzer, Scherzer is a lock HOF'er, hit the magic 300 strikeout level, was generally just as good in almost every way as deGrom, and oh yeah, won 18 games.  For a barely .500 team.  Notice, no excuses re: Scherzer playing for a bad team, even though the Nats were in fact a quite bad team.

All this being given, yes, Scherzer was clearly the winner IMO.  But no shock, the shiny new kid (in the big media market) got gifted the award because of his ERA and pretty much his ERA alone. 

Ok.  It must be accepted, but doesn't have to be liked or agreed with.  I know sad Mets fans need something, anything, to cling on to....sad this undeserved award is all you really have.

So Mike Trout will never win an MVP again if he team wins 70 games year after year? Only winning team can have the accolades? This line of arguing is so archaic that not even Indiana Jones is looking for it because it’s also worthless. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

1) Wins don't matter for Cy Young, nor should they.  Felix Hernandez once won the award with 13 wins, so it's not like there isn't precedence. 

I don't agree.  Nor has most of the Cy Young award voting history.

15 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

2) You're not sorry our team sucks so badly.  You used this thread as an opportunity to try to preemptively steal any joy Mets fans are getting out of deGrom winning this deserving award.  You failed at that.

No, I used the thread as an opportunity to express my opinion, that Scherzer is and was the better pitcher in 2018 and deserved the award.

15 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

3) "Gifted the award."  After a 1.70 ERA.  In an era when balls are flying out of the yard, he puts up dead ball numbers, and he was "gifted" the award.  OK.

His ERA was excellent, as was his limited number of HR's allowed.  That doesn't make him the better pitcher vs. Scherzer who was better in most other ways on a generally equally bad team. 

15 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

4) You're a condescending prick, and I don't care if I get banned for saying it. 

Well, I reported your post both for personal attacks and profanity, so I guess we'll see if all the talk of moderation was just talk or not. 

I have a feeling your veering off of the topic to (yet again) get personal with me over an opinion on sports will sadly result in the usual nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

So Mike Trout will never win an MVP again if he team wins 70 games year after year? Only winning team can have the accolades? This line of arguing is so archaic that not even Indiana Jones is looking for it because it’s also worthless. 

This argument happens every year in many sports, and it usually goes the same way.  The best player on the worst team (it is argued) is simply not the most valuable player in the sport.  If they were, their team wouldn't have been the worst team.

In some cases there is leeway, a team that just misses the playoffs on the back of a truly great player might have an argument.  And for awards that are named differently i.e. not "most valuable" but instead "the best X" there is also more room for taking a great singular performance on a very bad team.

In this case, I just don't agree.  deGrom was very good.  Sherzer was every single bit his equal.  Both played for bad teams.  But one was barely .500, the other was close to being a 20 game winner in an era where that has become more rare.

I think Sherzer earned the award because in a "they're both the same" Scherzer's win total and strikeouts and 2nd CG and others eclipse deGrom's ERA alone.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

It can be extremely frustrating pitching for such a bad team, but deGrom brought it every night, knowing he had to be perfect, and that still might not be enough to get the team a W.

Plus he didn't get addicted to cocaine.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is everyone's take on Snell winning it?

He won 21 games, which shouldn't matter.   He threw 180 innings in 31 starts, so he is BARELY a 6 inning pitcher.

Then again, Verlander only was 6.3 innings per start, more starts, 30 more innings, more strikeouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Warfish said:

This argument happens every year in many sports, and it usually goes the same way.  The best player on the worst team (it is argued) is simply not the most valuable player in the sport.  If they were, their team wouldn't have been the worst team.

In some cases there is leeway, a team that just misses the playoffs on the back of a truly great player might have an argument.  And for awards that are named differently i.e. not "most valuable" but instead "the best X" there is also more room for taking a great singular performance on a very bad team.

In this case, I just don't agree.  deGrom was very good.  Sherzer was every single bit his equal.  Both played for bad teams.  But one was barely .500, the other was close to being a 20 game winner in an era where that has become more rare.

I think Sherzer earned the award because in a "they're both the same" Scherzer's win total and strikeouts and 2nd CG and others eclipse deGrom's ERA alone.    

Is the cy young not for the best pitcher anymore?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, chirorob said:

What is everyone's take on Snell winning it?

He won 21 games, which shouldn't matter.   He threw 180 innings in 31 starts, so he is BARELY a 6 inning pitcher.

Then again, Verlander only was 6.3 innings per start, more starts, 30 more innings, more strikeouts.

Snell is fine. Verlander would have been fine too but Snell hit some historic marks. So far as innings pitched, meh. It's 2018 and especially it's the AL, 6 innings is pretty standard nowadays.

Voters got both leagues right this year. 29 out of 30 votes speaks volumes about the type of season DeGrom had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, greenwichjetfan said:

If you operate under the assumptions that:

1) how any pitcher performs on the mound is very separate from how his teammates perform at the plate
2) a pitcher's job is to not allow the other team to score runs so that his teammates don't have to work as hard at the plate to win games

then, if pitcher A allows less runs, walks, HRs, and has a significantly better ERA than player B, then player A was the better pitcher.

I guess my post had too much logic to garner a response from the fist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, chirorob said:

What is everyone's take on Snell winning it?

He won 21 games, which shouldn't matter.   He threw 180 innings in 31 starts, so he is BARELY a 6 inning pitcher.

Then again, Verlander only was 6.3 innings per start, more starts, 30 more innings, more strikeouts.

Snell winning is fine. He had the highest war of any AL starter. 

DeGrom had a higher WAR than Scherzer. Aaron Nola has a higher one than both. I think they were all deserving but DeGrom was filthy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

Snell winning is fine. He had the highest war of any AL starter. 

DeGrom had a higher WAR than Scherzer. Aaron Nola has a higher one than both. I think they were all deserving but DeGrom was filthy. 

DeGrom literally had one of the best seasons in the history of baseball. His ERA+ was the fifth best since the turn of the century. The sixth lowest ERA since they lowered the mound. He's the fifth guy in history to hit 1.7 with 30 starts and 260 k's. Even the DC writer voted for DeGrom.

This is actually a really great thing for baseball. Fans of any team should be happy. Things are finally fair. Wins for pitchers have been overrated for too long (i.e. Clemens in 1990, Kevin Appier getting completely jobbed, Johan [kind of] in 2008) and now there is finally some precedent to award based on more realistic numbers for the position. Doing away with the philosophy that a pitcher's W-L record is a good way to measure a pitcher's effectiveness was way overdue. Had the situations been reversed and Scherzer won this would still be a good thing. Math and basic logic won the day. It's about ******* time.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

DeGrom literally had one of the best seasons in the history of baseball. His ERA+ was the fifth best since the turn of the century. The sixth lowest ERA since they lowered the mound. He's the fifth guy in history to hit 1.7 with 30 starts and 260 k's. Even the DC writer voted for DeGrom.

This is actually a really great thing for baseball. Fans of any team should be happy. Things are finally fair. Wins for pitchers have been overrated for too long (i.e. Clemens in 1990, Kevin Appier getting completely jobbed, Johan [kind of] in 2008) and now there is finally some precedent to award based on more realistic numbers for the position. Doing away with the philosophy that a pitcher's W-L record is a good way to measure a pitcher's effectiveness was way overdue. Had the situations been reversed and Scherzer won this would still be a good thing. Math and basic logic won the day. It's about ******* time.

Win Loss is important.   Some guys pitch just well enough to lose.   DeGrom was not that guy this year, he pitched stellar, 29 straight starts of whatever it was.

I think the metrics guys go to far.   Maybe I'm old, I don't really get WAR.   Starting pitcher, here's what I want.     ERA.  Whip is great, but how many runs actually scored.   Inning pitched.    A guy who throws 220 is more valuable than a guy who throws 170.     Win Loss, or at least team record in games started.    Strike outs.

DeGrom's #s were so crazy it skews the win loss, but it is a factor to me.  That being said, I give it to DeGrom this year.

It's just like the argument RBIs don't really matter.   The goal of hitting is to score runs.   Some guys can get runs in even if they make an out, and some can't.   I think RBI matter.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RutgersJetFan said:

Plus he didn't get addicted to cocaine.

That we know of.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, chirorob said:

I think the metrics guys go to far. Maybe I'm old, I don't really get WAR. 

We honestly don't go far enough and don't worry because my dad doesn't understand it either. The equations behind this stuff are beyond sound and the reason they have to get tempered down is because the general public thinks numbers are gay and/or confusing. Front offices use far more complicated formulas than WAR.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, greenwichjetfan said:

I guess my post had too much logic to garner a response from the fist?

I don't sit on the forum all day you know, lol.

As a former Pitcher, no, I definitely do not agree that how a pitcher performs on the mound is seperate from how the hitters hit or the fielders field.  That's a vast oversimplification of a far more complex set of interactions.  The interactions of a live baseball game are never so simple.

Second, and it's amazing this has to be said, a pitchers primary job is to win games above all else.  Certainly not letting them score runs helps with that, but it's not the only factor or the best ERA would win the CY every year.  Winning, above all else.  Including over ones own personal stats.  However that has to happen.  It's incredibly telling IMO that modern fans have literally black holed in on themselves in the search for some perfect math equation to answer all things, and forget basic tenets like "win the game!".  Silly things like Wins and RBI's or Batting Avergae, worthless!  HR's, OPS and WAR or get out, right?  So what if your big power hitter took a walk instead of actually swinging in that vital spot, right?  OPS first!

Again, I see the year's of deGrom and Scherzer as quite equal performance wise in the numbers, but one won a hell of alot more, and thats my tiebreaker.  There is no disrespect to deGrom here.  Of course Mets fans are defending it.  If the tables were turned, and some Met was 18-5 and basically on-par on similar bad teams with a 10 or 9 win pitcher with a great ERA, we'd be hearing a VERY different story today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Warfish said:

Of course I think Scherzer should have won.  A .500 pitcher is simply never, ever, the best pitcher in MLB no matter what his stats.  and as shown, for all his flash he only produced (in terms of what counts) about as well as one of the worst pitchers in MLB.  Sorry, that's not Cy Young worthy.  

Sorry your team sucks horribly, but such is life.  deGrom wasn't materially better than Scherzer, Scherzer is a lock HOF'er, hit the magic 300 strikeout level, was generally just as good in almost every way as deGrom, and oh yeah, won 18 games.  For a barely .500 team.  Notice, no excuses re: Scherzer playing for a bad team, even though the Nats were in fact a quite bad team.

All this being given, yes, Scherzer was clearly the winner IMO.  But no shock, the shiny new kid (in the big media market) got gifted the award because of his ERA and pretty much his ERA alone. 

Ok.  It must be accepted, but doesn't have to be liked or agreed with.  I know sad Mets fans need something, anything, to cling on to....sad this undeserved award is all you really have.

This whole post is complete nonsense 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Warfish said:

I don't sit on the forum all day you know, lol.

As a former Pitcher, no, I definitely do not agree that how a pitcher performs on the mound is seperate from how the hitters hit or the fielders field.  That's a vast oversimplification of a far more complex set of interactions.  The interactions of a live baseball game are never so simple.

Second, and it's amazing this has to be said, a pitchers primary job is to win games above all else.  Certainly not letting them score runs helps with that, but it's not the only factor or the best ERA would win the CY every year.  Winning, above all else.  Including over ones own personal stats.  However that has to happen.  It's incredibly telling IMO that modern fans have literally black holed in on themselves in the search for some perfect math equation to answer all things, and forget basic tenets like "win the game!".  Silly things like Wins and RBI's or Batting Avergae, worthless!  HR's, OPS and WAR or get out, right?  So what if your big power hitter took a walk instead of actually swinging in that vital spot, right?  OPS first!

Again, I see the year's of deGrom and Scherzer as quite equal performance wise in the numbers, but one won a hell of alot more, and thats my tiebreaker.  There is no disrespect to deGrom here.  Of course Mets fans are defending it.  If the tables were turned, and some Met was 18-5 and basically on-par on similar bad teams with a 10 or 9 win pitcher with a great ERA, we'd be hearing a VERY different story today.

I’m a Yankees fan. Don’t believe me? Go back and check your thread about favorite baseball players. Or all of the threads about the Yankees postseasons the past few years.

Baseball is a mutifaceted team game: pitch and defend to prevent runs, hit and/or walk to score runs.

A pitcher pitches to prevent hits/walks which prevent runs. He doesn’t also bat 27 outs/game in order to score runs.

The pitcher who prevented hits, walks, and HRs runs at a greater rate than any other pitcher is the best pitcher.

Attempting to blame lack of run support on a guy who’s primary job has absolutely nothing to do with producing runs is hyper-disingenuous. And going back to our JI days, I know you know it. 

Degrom 100% deserved this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Warfish said:

I don't sit on the forum all day you know, lol.

As a former Pitcher, no, I definitely do not agree that how a pitcher performs on the mound is seperate from how the hitters hit or the fielders field.  That's a vast oversimplification of a far more complex set of interactions.  The interactions of a live baseball game are never so simple.

Second, and it's amazing this has to be said, a pitchers primary job is to win games above all else.  Certainly not letting them score runs helps with that, but it's not the only factor or the best ERA would win the CY every year.  Winning, above all else.  Including over ones own personal stats.  However that has to happen.  It's incredibly telling IMO that modern fans have literally black holed in on themselves in the search for some perfect math equation to answer all things, and forget basic tenets like "win the game!".  Silly things like Wins and RBI's or Batting Avergae, worthless!  HR's, OPS and WAR or get out, right?  So what if your big power hitter took a walk instead of actually swinging in that vital spot, right?  OPS first!

Again, I see the year's of deGrom and Scherzer as quite equal performance wise in the numbers, but one won a hell of alot more, and thats my tiebreaker.  There is no disrespect to deGrom here.  Of course Mets fans are defending it.  If the tables were turned, and some Met was 18-5 and basically on-par on similar bad teams with a 10 or 9 win pitcher with a great ERA, we'd be hearing a VERY different story today.

Yours is an opinion. Of course you are entitled to it, and I agree with part of it. I understand.

The thing is, 29 out of 30 of the writers that cover this game voted in one way. From all across the country. All with different mindsets and baseball beliefs. 

The fact that the vote was not even close, should let you know that there really is not much controversy here. It is ok to have a differing opinion, but the majority has spoken.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of amazing deGrom stats/comparisons:

-If Max Scherzer went on to pitch 115 consecutive score scoreless innings (no earned runs), he would still not pass deGrom in ERA.  

-If the Mets has scored 2 runs in each of deGrom's starts, he would have been 20-6, 3 runs 25-1, 4 runs, 30-0.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Scott Dierking said:

Yours is an opinion.

Yes.  

14 hours ago, Scott Dierking said:

Of course you are entitled to it, and I agree with part of it. I understand.

Thank you.

14 hours ago, Scott Dierking said:

The thing is, 29 out of 30 of the writers that cover this game voted in one way. From all across the country. All with different mindsets and baseball beliefs.

The "differing beliefs" is somewhat questionable, sportswriters are prone to like-mind and group-think as bad, if not worse, than many groups.

14 hours ago, Scott Dierking said:

The fact that the vote was not even close, should let you know that there really is not much controversy here. It is ok to have a differing opinion, but the majority has spoken.

I agree, there is no controversy in the sportswriter community whatsoever.  And the majority has spoken.    I don't agree with them, for the reasons stated.  I'm not posting on JN to demand some kind of recount, lol.  This an an opinion forum, I expressed an opinion. 

I'm looking forward to see how deGrom does next year.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2018 at 6:43 AM, Scott Dierking said:

A couple of amazing deGrom stats/comparisons:

-If Max Scherzer went on to pitch 115 consecutive score scoreless innings (no earned runs), he would still not pass deGrom in ERA.  

-If the Mets has scored 2 runs in each of deGrom's starts, he would have been 20-6, 3 runs 25-1, 4 runs, 30-0.

 

The 4 run thing is amazing. All of them are. What a crazy year with just no run support.

People saying wins aren't an important stat anymore will have a point when the starters are all bullpen guys. But for the top guys that are facing hitters three times through the lineup, wins are still important. And deGrom pitched great, he deserved to win 25 games pretty easily.

I am glad he won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I reading this right, degrom gave up 41 earned runs on the year and gave up 10 home runs?

Anyone know how many earned runs he gave up that weren't on home runs? That has to be close to half of them. Pretty impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company
×
×
  • Create New...