SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2018 MLB Awards Thread (Gold Glove, MVP, etc.)
|
Post by bluechip on Nov 10, 2018 6:44:15 GMT -5
They sure have about 100 times more awards than they used to. JDM won 2 Silver Slugger awards somehow, one as DH, one as OF. And Mookie Betts won the Heart & Hustle Award, whatever that is. (and also a Silver Slugger) People can complain about JD not being “a finalist” in the MVP if they want (MVP finalist is a fake designation), but two silver sluggers should be more than enough compensation. His baseball-reference page now looks like it has a typo.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,403
|
Post by radiohix on Nov 13, 2018 7:48:09 GMT -5
Shohei Ohtani wins a well deserved AL ROY award and the MFY fans are pissed and their tears are so tasty! What a great year 2018 has been fellas!
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 13, 2018 9:29:10 GMT -5
I don't think Alex Cora wins the Manager of the Year award - tough for a guy with the highest payroll to win that award and Kevin Cash with the way he managed a team that lacked for reliable starting and had issues on offense and Bob Melvin, for the way he managed a small market team to 97 wins are worthy manager of the year award winners, but Alex Cora....I mean the difference between John Farrell's 93 wins in 2016 and 2017 and Alex Cora's 108 wins in 2018 aren't totally explainable by JD Martinez. Maybe that got them to 100 wins or thereabouts but Cora is the difference maker. It's very visible.
And this award doesn't take the post season into account where people could see why Cora was a difference maker as a manager and see why the team was greater than the sum of its parts.
I just hope the voters look beyond the huge payroll and expectations and see a worthy manager of the year in Alex Cora. He totally deserves it in my biased opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Nov 13, 2018 19:34:14 GMT -5
Cora would have won in basically any other year, but you have to take your hats off to Melvin and Cash. They were just fantastic.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 13, 2018 19:42:26 GMT -5
Cora would have won in basically any other year, but you have to take your hats off to Melvin and Cash. They were just fantastic. Cora was the best manager in the playoffs and that's what matters most anyways.
|
|
|
Post by Addam603 on Nov 13, 2018 19:45:00 GMT -5
Cash should have won in my opinion. No one expected anything out of the Rays and he brought them to a 90 win season. Plus he started the whole opener business, which could end up changing the way we see starters.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 13, 2018 20:10:46 GMT -5
So I have to ask - how in the world does a Red Sox manager win the Manager of the Year Award?
John Farrell couldn't get one when he led the team from 69-93 to 97-65. Terry Francona got it that year with Cleveland but he couldn't get it any of the years he managed Boston.
So how many games does a Red Sox manager have to have the Red Sox win for him to be named Manager of the Year?
I guess 108 isn't enough? If Cora hadn't pumped the brakes on the team in September to prepare them for October maybe they would have won between 114 and 117 games. Would that have been enough to earn him manager of the year?
Why don't they just change the name of the award to Manager of the Year excluding Red Sox managers? Too lengthy a name?!?
I'm not trying to downgrade Melvin's accomplishment nor Cash, but Cora wasn't just some October wizard - he was fantastic all season long! He managed this team as perfectly as it could be managed.
Farrell had the same team minus Martinez - maybe Martinez's addition pushes the team towards 100 wins perhaps, but they won 108 - a good deal of those extra wins were because of Cora managing the team brilliantly. I guess I just don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Nov 13, 2018 20:30:21 GMT -5
So I have to ask - how in the world does a Red Sox manager win the Manager of the Year Award? John Farrell couldn't get one when he led the team from 69-93 to 97-65. Terry Francona got it that year with Cleveland but he couldn't get it any of the years he managed Boston. So how many games does a Red Sox manager have to have the Red Sox win for him to be named Manager of the Year? I guess 108 isn't enough? If Cora hadn't pumped the brakes on the team in September to prepare them for October maybe they would have won between 114 and 117 games. Would that have been enough to earn him manager of the year? Why don't they just change the name of the award to Manager of the Year excluding Red Sox managers? Too lengthy a name?!? I'm not trying to downgrade Melvin's accomplishment nor Cash, but Cora wasn't just some October wizard - he was fantastic all season long! He managed this team as perfectly as it could be managed. Farrell had the same team minus Martinez - maybe Martinez's addition pushes the team towards 100 wins perhaps, but they won 108 - a good deal of those extra wins were because of Cora managing the team brilliantly. I guess I just don't get it. It's not a case of anti-Red Sox bias, it's just the expectations for the Red Sox are consistently higher given their payroll and recent track record of success. No one that voted for Melvin or Cash over Cora did so because they thought Cora wasn't a good manager, but both of the other candidates took teams with significantly lower payrolls and expectations and vastly outperformed them. I don't have the numbers in front of me but I'm sure even with the Red Sox winning 108 games the A's were a better team relative to pre-season win projections. Edit: Manager is also just one component of the team, and the Red Sox had more talent than either of the two teams and (for this season's moves only) a better executive. In addition to comparing win totals relative to expectations I think you can attribute a higher portion of the credit for the team's success to Cash and Melvin.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 13, 2018 21:19:17 GMT -5
So I have to ask - how in the world does a Red Sox manager win the Manager of the Year Award? John Farrell couldn't get one when he led the team from 69-93 to 97-65. Terry Francona got it that year with Cleveland but he couldn't get it any of the years he managed Boston. So how many games does a Red Sox manager have to have the Red Sox win for him to be named Manager of the Year? I guess 108 isn't enough? If Cora hadn't pumped the brakes on the team in September to prepare them for October maybe they would have won between 114 and 117 games. Would that have been enough to earn him manager of the year? Why don't they just change the name of the award to Manager of the Year excluding Red Sox managers? Too lengthy a name?!? I'm not trying to downgrade Melvin's accomplishment nor Cash, but Cora wasn't just some October wizard - he was fantastic all season long! He managed this team as perfectly as it could be managed. Farrell had the same team minus Martinez - maybe Martinez's addition pushes the team towards 100 wins perhaps, but they won 108 - a good deal of those extra wins were because of Cora managing the team brilliantly. I guess I just don't get it. It's not a case of anti-Red Sox bias, it's just the expectations for the Red Sox are consistently higher given their payroll and recent track record of success. No one that voted for Melvin or Cash over Cora did so because they thought Cora wasn't a good manager, but both of the other candidates took teams with significantly lower payrolls and expectations and vastly outperformed them. I don't have the numbers in front of me but I'm sure even with the Red Sox winning 108 games the A's were a better team relative to pre-season win projections. Edit: Manager is also just one component of the team, and the Red Sox had more talent than either of the two teams and (for this season's moves only) a better executive. In addition to comparing win totals relative to expectations I think you can attribute a higher portion of the credit for the team's success to Cash and Melvin. I get it, but as talented as the Red Sox are I think a lot of people besides me during the season saw them carrying 3 catchers, none of whom hit much better than replacement level, subpar offense and defense (when Nunez was playing) at 2b, lousy defense at 3b with mediocre production, a half season of no offense out of CF, their 1b and #3 hitter was released in May, a shaky bullpen, and a rotation that had no Chris Sale in it for two months. I get that the Sox have great expectations but how does one expect 108 wins given the scenario outlined as above? Oh, the Sox were talented. Mookie, JDM, Sale, and Price, X, Benni, and Kimbrel when he wasn't in a funk along were big advantages, but still, 108 wins does not compute. Cora did a sensational job to get that figure. I get that Melvin and Cash did amazing jobs too and somebody had to win, but if 108 wins given those circumstances doesn't do the trick, then what does?
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Nov 13, 2018 22:09:43 GMT -5
So should they rename the award to "The Small Market Manager of the Year"?
108 regular season wins. Take out 2 100+ win teams in the play-offs, including the defending world champs, with a combined 7-2 record. Then defeat the back to back NL champs in 5 games. I know, I know the post season isn't taken into account but what does one have to do to win this award?
I don't think there is an anti-Red Sox bias just a comprehensive lack of respect. All the "experts" picked the MFY's in the ALDS. Then all the "experts" picked the Astros in the ALCS. Probably many of the same "experts" who voted on this award. 108 regular season wins is still 108 regular season wins and many as talented teams have failed to reach that number in the past. So what's the difference? I say the manager but, hey, that is just my opinion man...
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 13, 2018 22:16:46 GMT -5
I think the two other 100 win teams in the AL kind of took away the glamor of a 108 win team for some of the voters. The entire AL was garbage outside of 6 teams.
I still think Cora deserved it, but I can see where people thought Melvin did more with less. Oakland didn't even have a good rotation last year. Fernando Rodney was one of their "big pickups" along with Familia.
The Sox kind of coasted after the 4 game sweep of the Yankees (and rightfully so).
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Nov 13, 2018 22:31:53 GMT -5
I have a slightly different take on it. To win 108 games with a high payroll team that suffered through the injuries* that the Sox did, while not losing more than 3 in a row along the way, is more impressive than what any of those managers with "less" did.
* Sale Wright E-Rod Pedroia Holt Devers Vazquez
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 13, 2018 22:36:42 GMT -5
If I had a vote, it would have been Cash, Melvin, Cora in that order. Great job by all three though. Maybe the most clouded field ever.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Nov 13, 2018 23:06:11 GMT -5
Well hopefully Mookie wins the MVP. I am expecting/hoping he will but there is more than a 0% chance that someone whose team didn't even make the play-offs could be deemed "most valuable". Most valuable in what regard? Isn't in baseball value based on winning? All the "wins above" metrics are based on winning. Maybe we should rename the MVP to "The Most Statistically Excellent" award while we're at it.
Obviously I have issues with the post season awards and the logic behind their awarding.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Nov 13, 2018 23:49:34 GMT -5
Well hopefully Mookie wins the MVP. I am expecting/hoping he will but there is more than a 0% chance that someone whose team didn't even make the play-offs could be deemed "most valuable". Most valuable in what regard? Isn't in baseball value based on winning? All the "wins above" metrics are based on winning. Maybe we should rename the MVP to "The Most Statistically Excellent" award while we're at it. Obviously I have issues with the post season awards and the logic behind their awarding. I'm not sure I understand your argument. You're saying that players on bad teams can't contribute to winning? If Mookie and Trout had the same WAR then by that metric they are equally as valuable, regardless of team success. It seems wrong to me to exclude a player from winning an award simply because his teammates aren't as good as another player's. You could make a legit case that DeGrom should've been NL MVP this year but the Mets were so pathetic that he wasn't even a finalist, and that seems unfair. I think Mookie should win MVP, and he probably will, but it's silly to me that you would take issue with the idea of the best player in baseball winning just because he happens to be on a worse team. MVP should take narrative into account a small amount and that obviously favors Mookie, but value is fairly objective in baseball and they were the two most valuable in the game this year.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 13, 2018 23:55:35 GMT -5
Well hopefully Mookie wins the MVP. I am expecting/hoping he will but there is more than a 0% chance that someone whose team didn't even make the play-offs could be deemed "most valuable". Most valuable in what regard? Isn't in baseball value based on winning? All the "wins above" metrics are based on winning. Maybe we should rename the MVP to "The Most Statistically Excellent" award while we're at it. Obviously I have issues with the post season awards and the logic behind their awarding. I'm not sure I understand your argument. You're saying that players on bad teams can't contribute to winning? If Mookie and Trout had the same WAR then by that metric they are equally as valuable, regardless of team success. It seems wrong to me to exclude a player from winning an award simply because his teammates aren't as good as another player's. You could make a legit case that DeGrom should've been NL MVP this year but the Mets were so pathetic that he wasn't even a finalist, and that seems unfair. I think Mookie should win MVP, and he probably will, but it's silly to me that you would take issue with the idea of the best player in baseball winning just because he happens to be on a worse team. MVP should take narrative into account a small amount and that obviously favors Mookie, but value is fairly objective in baseball and they were the two most valuable in the game this year. Agree with this. The most obvious recent case was Cabrera winning over Trout in 2013. The award should be redone and named Player of the Year.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Nov 13, 2018 23:56:45 GMT -5
If I had a vote, it would have been Cash, Melvin, Cora in that order. Great job by all three though. Maybe the most clouded field ever. I agree about the field being incredibly stacked. The complaints from Red Sox fans about how the award only favors small market teams may be somewhat fair when you look at last year with Molitor winning with an 85 win Twins team, but Bob Melvin was 3 wins shy of winning 100 games which is absolutely crazy. If you would've told people in March that the Sox would win 108 games, people would be surprised but given the star power I don't think shocked, but you would've been laughed out of the room for saying the A's would get near 100.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Nov 13, 2018 23:59:52 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand your argument. You're saying that players on bad teams can't contribute to winning? If Mookie and Trout had the same WAR then by that metric they are equally as valuable, regardless of team success. It seems wrong to me to exclude a player from winning an award simply because his teammates aren't as good as another player's. You could make a legit case that DeGrom should've been NL MVP this year but the Mets were so pathetic that he wasn't even a finalist, and that seems unfair. I think Mookie should win MVP, and he probably will, but it's silly to me that you would take issue with the idea of the best player in baseball winning just because he happens to be on a worse team. MVP should take narrative into account a small amount and that obviously favors Mookie, but value is fairly objective in baseball and they were the two most valuable in the game this year. Agree with this. The most obvious recent case was Cabrera winning over Trout in 2013. The award should be redone and named Player of the Year. I get Cabrera winning it, though. Advanced stats hadn't really hit in the mainstream yet and he was the first Triple Crown winner since Yaz in 1967 so while Trout was definitely the best player in baseball that year, it makes sense given the context of the accomplishment that he'd win it. The strides baseball has taken in assessing value is pretty great in the 6 years since though, which is why I thought it was unlikely that JD would have a chance at the award even if he got the Triple Crown.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Nov 14, 2018 0:03:26 GMT -5
Well hopefully Mookie wins the MVP. I am expecting/hoping he will but there is more than a 0% chance that someone whose team didn't even make the play-offs could be deemed "most valuable". Most valuable in what regard? Isn't in baseball value based on winning? All the "wins above" metrics are based on winning. Maybe we should rename the MVP to "The Most Statistically Excellent" award while we're at it. Obviously I have issues with the post season awards and the logic behind their awarding. I'm not sure I understand your argument. You're saying that players on bad teams can't contribute to winning? If Mookie and Trout had the same WAR then by that metric they are equally as valuable, regardless of team success. It seems wrong to me to exclude a player from winning an award simply because his teammates aren't as good as another player's. You could make a legit case that DeGrom should've been NL MVP this year but the Mets were so pathetic that he wasn't even a finalist, and that seems unfair. I think Mookie should win MVP, and he probably will, but it's silly to me that you would take issue with the idea of the best player in baseball winning just because he happens to be on a worse team. MVP should take narrative into account a small amount and that obviously favors Mookie, but value is fairly objective in baseball and they were the two most valuable in the game this year. In a sense I am saying that. When a team fails to make the post season (and in one case finished dead last in their division) and their player wins the MVP, that player didn't deserve it. To me the team winning is the cornerstone on which the MVP is built. Most of the times the writers get it right from my POV and the MVP is usually from a team that won their division, or at least got a wild card. But every once in a while there is a clanker…
But your DeGrom point is exactly what I am talking about with the "Most Statistically Excellent" quip I made. If it is not about winning, and just about the individual stats, call it what it is.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Nov 14, 2018 0:27:31 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand your argument. You're saying that players on bad teams can't contribute to winning? If Mookie and Trout had the same WAR then by that metric they are equally as valuable, regardless of team success. It seems wrong to me to exclude a player from winning an award simply because his teammates aren't as good as another player's. You could make a legit case that DeGrom should've been NL MVP this year but the Mets were so pathetic that he wasn't even a finalist, and that seems unfair. I think Mookie should win MVP, and he probably will, but it's silly to me that you would take issue with the idea of the best player in baseball winning just because he happens to be on a worse team. MVP should take narrative into account a small amount and that obviously favors Mookie, but value is fairly objective in baseball and they were the two most valuable in the game this year. In a sense I am saying that. When a team fails to make the post season (and in one case finished dead last in their division) and their player wins the MVP, that player didn't deserve it. To me the team winning is the cornerstone on which the MVP is built. Most of the times the writers get it right from my POV and the MVP is usually from a team that won their division, or at least got a wild card. But every once in a while there is a clanker…
But your DeGrom point is exactly what I am talking about with the "Most Statistically Excellent" quip I made. If it is not about winning, and just about the individual stats, call it what it is.
Baseball is almost entirely predicated on what those statistics represent, though. The players that contribute to winning the most are always the ones with the best statistics. In basketball I agree that the MVP award should be reserved for a player on a good team, because one player can make a team (see: LeBron). But one player can't carry a team in baseball, which is why I don't think it should be a big factor in deciding who is considered most valuable. The Red Sox are still maybe a playoff team without Mookie, but the Angels without Trout are one of the 5 worst teams in baseball and the Mets without DeGrom may have had a case for one of the worst teams in a while. Maybe that value added Mookie provided is contextually more important but I don't think it definitively is. But for the sake of your argument, let's construct a set of MVP finalists using the best player from the 3 best teams in each league: American League Mookie Betts Alex Bregman Aaron Judge National League Christian Yelich Freddie Freeman Max Muncy (!!!) You have the two likely winners of the award on that list, which is fine. But there is no way on Earth you could convince me that Bregman, and especially Judge are more valuable than Trout (Or Ramirez, Lindor, or Chapman for that matter). And on the NL side it's the same deal, Freeman isn't more valuable than DeGrom, Scherzer, Nola, Baez, Arenado, and probably a few others. Hell, Muncy may not have been one of the 30 most valuable players in baseball this year. Anyway, the point of that was to show just because the team is better doesn't mean there always has to be a player whose individual value stands out. It's an individual award, and Trout was nearly as valuable as Mookie this year.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 14, 2018 6:46:32 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand your argument. You're saying that players on bad teams can't contribute to winning? If Mookie and Trout had the same WAR then by that metric they are equally as valuable, regardless of team success. It seems wrong to me to exclude a player from winning an award simply because his teammates aren't as good as another player's. You could make a legit case that DeGrom should've been NL MVP this year but the Mets were so pathetic that he wasn't even a finalist, and that seems unfair. I think Mookie should win MVP, and he probably will, but it's silly to me that you would take issue with the idea of the best player in baseball winning just because he happens to be on a worse team. MVP should take narrative into account a small amount and that obviously favors Mookie, but value is fairly objective in baseball and they were the two most valuable in the game this year. In a sense I am saying that. When a team fails to make the post season (and in one case finished dead last in their division) and their player wins the MVP, that player didn't deserve it. To me the team winning is the cornerstone on which the MVP is built. Most of the times the writers get it right from my POV and the MVP is usually from a team that won their division, or at least got a wild card. But every once in a while there is a clanker…
But your DeGrom point is exactly what I am talking about with the "Most Statistically Excellent" quip I made. If it is not about winning, and just about the individual stats, call it what it is.
So in order for deGrom to win, he would have to take over as GM to make the team better? Players can be valuable even when their team isn't good. They can be more valuable than players on teams that do make the playoffs. Do you think Mike Trout should make 1/10th as much money because his team doesn't make the playoffs and therefore he's not that valuable? The player has no control over the other players on the team. Do you want to disqualify these players from winning the MVP and give the award to a worse player on a team that made the playoffs? This comes up every single year at this time and it's never resolved.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 14, 2018 10:13:26 GMT -5
I guess there was absolutely nothing that Cora could have done to win the award this year. I mean 15 more wins than Farrell with almost the same roster is pretty good. JDM didn't account for those 15 wins.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 14, 2018 10:53:21 GMT -5
I guess there was absolutely nothing that Cora could have done to win the award this year. I mean 15 more wins than Farrell with almost the same roster is pretty good. JDM didn't account for those 15 wins. What accounted for the A's 22 game improvement ?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 14, 2018 11:28:37 GMT -5
I guess there was absolutely nothing that Cora could have done to win the award this year. I mean 15 more wins than Farrell with almost the same roster is pretty good. JDM didn't account for those 15 wins. What accounted for the A's 22 game improvement ? A lot of players had much better seasons than the year before. Same as the Red Sox. Still, my point remains. I guess Cora had to go 162-0 for some people to consider him as a possible winner. I've read comments sections on fangraphs and mlb and all the non-Sox fans seem to think a kid in kindergarten could have done the job Cora did because of the roster, but that's f'ing stupid. At some point, the Red Sox can exceed expectations, and that was probably set at about 95 wins before the season started.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 14, 2018 11:41:15 GMT -5
What accounted for the A's 22 game improvement ? A lot of players had much better seasons than the year before. Same as the Red Sox. Still, my point remains. I guess Cora had to go 162-0 for some people to consider him as a possible winner. I've read comments sections on fangraphs and mlb and all the non-Sox fans seem to think a kid in kindergarten could have done the job Cora did because of the roster, but that's f'ing stupid. At some point, the Red Sox can exceed expectations, and that was probably set at about 95 wins before the season started. Fans don't vote. I'd guess that both Melvin and Cash improved when compared to pre-season expectations more than Cora. That was always my gripe with Farrell, he almost always won less games than expected.
|
|
|