Not shocking, Arozarena and India are RsOY. I think Arozarena won this award before this season even started. Didn't see India play much but he was exciting the few times I did.
Not to mention that Urias won 20 games and only got 3 measly 5th place votes.24 combined wins for the two CYA winners is pretty wild, considering they were both starters. Shows how much the game has changed!
Phillies had the Cy Young runner-up, the MVP runner-up (EDIT: WINNER), and won 82 games.Jays have 2/3 of the MVP finalists and the CY favorite yet don’t make the playoffs !!
Max also had lower H/9 and WHIP. Looks like the solo HR's did him in. Burnes allowed much fewer HR's.Man, I know Burnes had a much higher WAR than Scherzer, but I really thought Max having more wins, IP, K's and only .03 higher ERA would get it for him. I mean, good for the voters for picking someone who the advanced stats said was the best pitcher!
He's no Bob Welch.Not to mention that Urias won 20 games and only got 3 measly 5th place votes.
Honestly, to me it seems like Wheeler was more screwed. I know that despite the fewer innings pitched that Burnes had a higher WAR by .2, but Wheeler pitched nearly 50 more innings and 30 more innings than Scherzer. Burnes barely qualified for the ERA title.Man, I know Burnes had a much higher WAR than Scherzer, but I really thought Max having more wins, IP, K's and only .03 higher ERA would get it for him. I mean, good for the voters for picking someone who the advanced stats said was the best pitcher!
Speaking of which, will anyone ever win 27 games in our lifetimes again?He's no Bob Welch.
Starters aren't getting much more than 30 starts in a season. So probably not.Speaking of which, will anyone ever win 27 games in our lifetimes again?
If a team goes far enough towards openers that someone like Whitlock is making 50-60 appearances a year in the early to middle innings it's possible. Or if they change the rules to allow a pitcher win for a starter going under 5 innings.Speaking of which, will anyone ever win 27 games in our lifetimes again?
That was going to be my question - I never understood that rule, if a starter goes 4 2/3 and then the relieves split up the rest, shouldn’t the guy who pitched the most innings - if leaving with the lead - still get the W?If a team goes far enough towards openers that someone like Whitlock is making 50-60 appearances a year in the early to middle innings it's possible. Or if they change the rules to allow a pitcher win for a starter going under 5 innings.
Probably, or the official scorer should at least have the discretion to award them a win if they were the best pitcher, like they do with any other reliever.That was going to be my question - I never understood that rule, if a starter goes 4 2/3 and then the relieves split up the rest, shouldn’t the guy who pitched the most innings - if leaving with the lead - still get the W?
Baseball, more than any other sport, is tied to statistics. You remember .406 and 61 and 56 and 511, but there's no way you know Kareem's career FG percentage or the number of blocks Hakeem had.Probably, or the official scorer should at least have the discretion to award them a win if they were the best pitcher, like they do with any other reliever.
I'm guessing it'll happen eventually, but because it's baseball and the stats are sacred to some it'll take way longer than it logically should.
There are players with home run totals in the record books that include balls bouncing over walls because that used to count as a home run.Baseball, more than any other sport, is tied to statistics. You remember .406 and 61 and 56 and 511, but there's no way you know Kareem's career FG percentage or the number of blocks Hakeem had.
So if they change the rule, they really ought to go back and look at every game and re-adjust the win totals for those players too. Otherwise it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.
I know rule changes happen in other sports too (so for example, comparing a QB today to a QB in 1985 is apples and oranges as well), but no other sport has statistics as part of the fabric of the game like baseball.
Yeah, Mike Schmidt wasn’t going to raise a glass of champagne for Soto.Looks like MLB is telegraphing all of the winners with who's presenting each award.
It wasn't as clear a case of telegraphing as it first appeared. Otherwise, Ray would have been snubbed.Yeah, Mike Schmidt wasn’t going to raise a glass of champagne for Soto.
had a better seasonGood job AL MVP voters, except the guy that voted salvy 2nd
He will be by the time his phillies contract is up.Bryce Harper a HOF candidate yet?
Unless he goes all Dale Murphy on us.Bryce Harper a HOF candidate yet?
Jim Salisbury from NBC Sports Philadelphia had Soto seventh. I don't know him. I always thought that Susan Slusser from the SF Chronicle was a pretty good writer, but she had Soto sixth (and Tyler O'Neill third and Harper fifth). O'Neill deserves a vote, but I don't see how anyone can put him ahead of Soto and Harper.I wonder which writers put Soto as their 6th and 7th choices. Seems pretty ridiculous.
Salisbury had Goldy 3rd and Riley 4th. That seems off.Jim Salisbury from NBC Sports Philadelphia had Soto seventh. I don't know him. I always thought that Susan Slusser from the SF Chronicle was a pretty good writer, but she had Soto sixth (and Tyler O'Neill third and Harper fifth). O'Neill deserves a vote, but I don't see how anyone can put him ahead of Soto and Harper.
Here's a link to all of the ballots: https://bbwaa.com/21-nl-mvp-ballots/
The thinking is that he didn't hit particularly well at the start of the season when the team had a chance. He took off after the deadline when they gave up and traded away all the other good players. How valuable are you when your team is playing .300 ball for three months? I wouldn't have had him so low, but there is a kind of logic to it.I wonder which writers put Soto as their 6th and 7th choices. Seems pretty ridiculous.