2019 MLB Awards Week: Verlander barely beats Cole for Cy Young

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
ERod was sixth
Wow... really? That's great. I'm still very cautiously optimistic about EdRod- he feels like Buchholz v2.0 in that I see the greatness and ability there but he somehow (injury or lack of focus) just never gets close...... hope I'm wrong! I really actually like watching him pitch.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
If the two Houston voters had voted Cole instead of Verlander it would have been a tie.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,715
I don't really get the reactions here, I don't pay too much attention to awards but everyone said that those two were neck and neck, which is how it turned out. I mean, this is pretty incredible:

"Verlander's 0.80 WHIP is the second-lowest in the live-ball era (since 1920) in a single season. Only Pedro Martinez in 2000 prevented opponents from reaching at a more impressive clip (0.74!). Additionally, only that version of Pedro, Luis Tiant in 1968, and Nolan Ryan in 1972 and 1991 produced better opponent's batting averages than Verlander's .171 over that time period."
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
yea they were really close and Verlander threw a no hitter. Its not like Rick Porcello beat Cole, Verlander had an amazing year
 

bluefenderstrat

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2002
2,587
Tralfamadore
How is it a shocker? They were pretty much exactly equal across the board, and the voting reflected that. Cole had 26 more Ks, Verlander threw 10 more innings. Calling it a "lifetime achievement award" is an insult to Verlander's season.
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,075
Concord, NH
This thread puzzles me. There was another thread on this a while ago and the general consensus was of course it would be Verlander. That even Cole knows it was going to be Verlander. A third no hitter and breaking the 300/3000 threshold in a game break the virtual tie. This isn't an upset. If anything, it was closer than I expected
 

Comfortably Lomb

Koko the Monkey
SoSH Member
Feb 22, 2004
12,959
The Paris of the 80s
Ditto for not understanding the reactions. It looks like a coin flip based on their numbers with a slight edge to Verlander. The idea that Cole was decidedly better is unsupportable IMO.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,017
Oregon
There's a reason that the poster who called it a "lifetime achievement award" has a tagline that reads "lacks black ink"
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,251
I dunno, Cole not losing a game since late May is just as "impressive" as a no-hitter.

Felt like Cole's to lose to me even before the WS
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,075
Concord, NH
Cole also would have been a perfectly valid choice. It wouldn't really be an upset either way It's hard to make a concrete case for either.
 

richgedman'sghost

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2006
1,870
ct
Cole also would have been a perfectly valid choice. It wouldn't really be an upset either way It's hard to make a concrete case for either.
Yeah I don't get @Ale Xander's comment that this is a "lifetime achievement award." To me, both pitchers were neck and neck in virtually all the categories. Jon Heyman had an interesting theory on why the Houston writers voted for Verlander. His reasoning was that the Houston writers knew that they would have to put up with Verlander for the next two years while Cole is probably headed out of town. That theory is as good as any other one I've heard. Anyway I would have been satisfied with either Cole or Verlander winning. Better yet, just call it a tie and reward both players. It happened in the NL MVP race of 79.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at Ale Xander's response. He is the same fellow who said Jeter barely makes the Hall of Fame
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,894
Austin, TX
I agree that Verlander's season was Cy Young-worthy in a vacuum, but to add some context around the idea of "lifetime achievement." I've definitely heard the sentiment from baseball media that Verlander was twice robbed of a Cy Young and therefore maaaaaybe that should sort of be a tiebreaker here. For example, this is Richard Justice on yesterday's Morning LineUp podcast (around 9:08):

I want to go back to a perfectly indefensible position, which is that we owe Justin for 2016 and 2018. I truly believe that. That's no reason to vote for him in 2019. Sarah Langs even brought this up, as analytically minded as she is. She told us on an earlier podcast: "Well, let's face it. This might be Justin Verlander's last chance; Gerrit Cole's probably going to have many more chances to win." Again, that's really not defensible, but these are human beings voting.
https://rss.art19.com/episodes/8eea8253-e480-442d-87be-3baac4cfb56a.mp3
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,075
Concord, NH
I do think there's some degree of "lifetime achievement" but it's more like "tie goes to the narrative".

This thread kinda illustrates the idea, too. The last thread, which was just before the end of the regular season I believe, the only real narrative was Verlander's no-no and 300/3000 game. That thread was pretty ho hum and mostly in agreement that it would go to him.

Now that Cole had a great postseason, the narrative is a little different and Cole looks like the obvious choice. We're not rational creatures, we humans. Narrative matters.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,715
I agree that Verlander's season was Cy Young-worthy in a vacuum, but to add some context around the idea of "lifetime achievement." I've definitely heard the sentiment from baseball media that Verlander was twice robbed of a Cy Young and therefore maaaaaybe that should sort of be a tiebreaker here. For example, this is Richard Justice on yesterday's Morning LineUp podcast (around 9:08):

https://rss.art19.com/episodes/8eea8253-e480-442d-87be-3baac4cfb56a.mp3
Yeah, I'm OK with that, it's actually how I probably would have voted, but only because the two were essentially tied. If they allowed it, I'd have split my vote between the two probably, but they don't (and I don't get a vote).
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Yeah I don't get @Ale Xander's comment that this is a "lifetime achievement award." To me, both pitchers were neck and neck in virtually all the categories. Jon Heyman had an interesting theory on why the Houston writers voted for Verlander. His reasoning was that the Houston writers knew that they would have to put up with Verlander for the next two years while Cole is probably headed out of town. That theory is as good as any other one I've heard. Anyway I would have been satisfied with either Cole or Verlander winning. Better yet, just call it a tie and reward both players. It happened in the NL MVP race of 79.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at Ale Xander's response. He is the same fellow who said Jeter barely makes the Hall of Fame
The same poster thinks Jeter is questionable for the HoF
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,017
Oregon
I recognize Trout is a phenom, of course, but he's now won MVPs on a 74 win and a 72 win team. I have a hard time with that.
It's the age old argument ... is the MVP measured in value or performance? These days, those who consider it an award for performance win out, and cite "value" in terms of comparable statistics.

The intrinsic nature of "Valuable" is on the losing side of history
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,439
Yeah I don't get @Ale Xander's comment that this is a "lifetime achievement award." To me, both pitchers were neck and neck in virtually all the categories. Jon Heyman had an interesting theory on why the Houston writers voted for Verlander. His reasoning was that the Houston writers knew that they would have to put up with Verlander for the next two years while Cole is probably headed out of town. That theory is as good as any other one I've heard. Anyway I would have been satisfied with either Cole or Verlander winning. Better yet, just call it a tie and reward both players. It happened in the NL MVP race of 79.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at Ale Xander's response. He is the same fellow who said Jeter barely makes the Hall of Fame
The 3000k and 3rd no hitter note above seem to back me up.
 

jmm57

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,485
I don’t like Trout winning with 28 missed games. He’s the best player, don’t think he was the most valuable in 2019 when Bregman had a monster year
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,439
The same poster thinks Jeter was questionable for the HoF
Still wrong tense

But you really need to find a different vendetta to fight. The tag team effort against me with you and Lose is getting tiresome. Please find a hobby and/or block my posts.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,439
I don’t like Trout winning with 28 missed games. He’s the best player, don’t think he was the most valuable in 2019 when Bregman had a monster year
I agree. It seems to me that the bulk of Trout's support stems from a lack of production from his teammates. That's certainly a defensible position in discussions about his value to the Angels.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
I don’t like Trout winning with 28 missed games. He’s the best player, don’t think he was the most valuable in 2019 when Bregman had a monster year
On the other hand, sad Bregman is always an awesome thing. And I’d love to see Trout in that lineup with cheat codes.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
8,457
I recognize Trout is a phenom, of course, but he's now won MVPs on a 74 win and a 72 win team. I have a hard time with that.
It’s not unprecedented. The ‘58 and ‘59 Cubs had similar records and Ernie Banks still won back to back MVPs.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
He should have 5 of them. Maybe 6.
and the 2 that he "shouldn't" have won took a historic year from mookie plus a minor trout injury, and a severe trout injury, he easily could have been the best player in the AL 8 straight years, insanity
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Still wrong tense

But you really need to find a different vendetta to fight. The tag team effort against me with you and Lose is getting tiresome. Please find a hobby and/or block my posts.
Ale:

You're right.

I'm sorry I referenced your other posts in this thread. They should (and do) stand on their own, as does your post in this thread.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
I don’t like Trout winning with 28 missed games. He’s the best player, don’t think he was the most valuable in 2019 when Bregman had a monster year
Bregman's monster year was still inferior to Trout's in a lot of ways (including some counting stats). And if we're factoring in team success, how does having the rookie of the year and the top two finishers in the Cy Young on the team impact Bregman's role in the Astros' success?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Trout's MVP finishes since he's entered MLB, not counting his first call-up season during which he didn't even have enough time to qualify for ROY:

2nd
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
4th
2nd
1st

Last three seasons: .303/.447/.634/1.083, 190 ops+

The guy is just ridiculous.
 

BoSox Rule

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,343
Only time he didn’t win or finish second, he played in 114 games and was (at the time) having his best hitting season.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,541
Trout's MVP finishes since he's entered MLB, not counting his first call-up season during which he didn't even have enough time to qualify for ROY:

2nd
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
4th
2nd
1st

Last three seasons: .303/.447/.634/1.083, 190 ops+

The guy is just ridiculous.
Mike Trout should be a major sports star in this country. He should be MLB's LeBron James and I have no idea why he's not.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,541
1. Baseball
2. Anaheim
That's dumb and wrong. Despite the naysayers lament, it has been proven that baseball is still a very popular sport (not as popular as the NFL) that is neck-and-neck with the NBA.

And Anaheim is 30-40 minutes outside of the second largest media market in the country, which is LeBron James' back yard, BTW. Not only that but LeBron played the bulk of his career in Cleveland. Arguably the second most popular NBA player, Giannis Antetokoumpo plays in Milwaukee, Kevin Durant played a large portion of his career in Oklahoma City. So Anaheim is not the issue, since this isn't 1985, where the size of media markets matter.
 

Archer1979

shazowies
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
7,870
Right Here
That's dumb and wrong. Despite the naysayers lament, it has been proven that baseball is still a very popular sport (not as popular as the NFL) that is neck-and-neck with the NBA.

And Anaheim is 30-40 minutes outside of the second largest media market in the country, which is LeBron James' back yard, BTW. Not only that but LeBron played the bulk of his career in Cleveland. Arguably the second most popular NBA player, Giannis Antetokoumpo plays in Milwaukee, Kevin Durant played a large portion of his career in Oklahoma City. So Anaheim is not the issue, since this isn't 1985, where the size of media markets matter.
The Angels haven't exactly been a league powerhouse either. Trout has rarely played on the big stage while Lebron has been a fixture in the post-season for many years. Not saying that he hasn't been one of the best baseball players on the planet for the last few years. Just that he hasn't had the opportunity to be the league focal point during their biggest games.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
That's dumb and wrong. Despite the naysayers lament, it has been proven that baseball is still a very popular sport (not as popular as the NFL) that is neck-and-neck with the NBA.

And Anaheim is 30-40 minutes outside of the second largest media market in the country, which is LeBron James' back yard, BTW. Not only that but LeBron played the bulk of his career in Cleveland. Arguably the second most popular NBA player, Giannis Antetokoumpo plays in Milwaukee, Kevin Durant played a large portion of his career in Oklahoma City. So Anaheim is not the issue, since this isn't 1985, where the size of media markets matter.
It's neither dumb nor wrong. We simply don't see baseball stars at the same level of popularity nationally as we do basketball or football stars. That's simply a fact. You won't find a single baseball player anywhere near the popularity of Tom Brady or LeBron James or Steph Curry or even athletes like Tiger Woods or Serena Williams. I wish it wasn't that way, as I love baseball, but it is that way.

And Anaheim...yes a major market, but Anaheim has been terrible and Trout loses publicity and fame because of it. If he got to play in the playoffs in front of a national audience all the time, he'd be more popular, but he doesn't, and isn't.
 

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
2,494
MLB could certainly do a better job of promoting their talent, and with the wave of young stars they have right now, they really should be trying. That said, you can't ignore the individual. Guys like Lindor, Soto and Acuna seem very marketable. While Trout might be the best baseball player of our lifetimes, from what I've seen, he's struggling to reach the Mendoza Line in the personality department. Have we not all seen his work for Subway? He's just not very interesting outside the lines.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,541
The Angels haven't exactly been a league powerhouse either. Trout has rarely played on the big stage while Lebron has been a fixture in the post-season for many years. Not saying that he hasn't been one of the best baseball players on the planet for the last few years. Just that he hasn't had the opportunity to be the league focal point during their biggest games.
I can buy that Trout hasn't played on the big stage yet. But neither, really, has Antetokounmpo. Until last season, Antetokounmpo never played more than seven games in a postseason and everyone knew him.

It's neither dumb nor wrong. We simply don't see baseball stars at the same level of popularity nationally as we do basketball or football stars. That's simply a fact. You won't find a single baseball player anywhere near the popularity of Tom Brady or LeBron James or Steph Curry or even athletes like Tiger Woods or Serena Williams. I wish it wasn't that way, as I love baseball, but it is that way.
I didn't mean that you were dumb and wrong, just this way of thinking is that way. There is no reason why a baseball player shouldn't be one of the top ten most famous athletes in this country, especially someone who is as transcendent as Mike Trout. My feeling is that MLB spends so much time fetishizing and promoting its past, that it often neglects and ignores its present. Mookie Betts is another player who should be one of the biggest names in the country. Yet he's not. For a player like Trout or Betts, they have world-class hand-eye-coordination but they aren't genetic freaks like basketball or football players. When I was a kid, I knew that I could never been Patrick Ewing or Michael Jordan, but someone like Jody Reed? I could do that (at least I thought that I could), he's a small dude who ropes doubles. For a kid, Betts should be the same way.

Sorry for the tangent, but what I'm trying to say is that baseball is really missing the boat on this generation. Instead of MLB Network rerunning Ken Burns' Baseball for the millionth time or having the photos of players who haven't played in 50+ years all over their studio show, how about talking about today's baseball stars withOUT the caveat that "Player X is no Willie Mays" or "Player Y doesn't come in as hard as Bob Gibson". Who gives a shit about those guys except boomers trying to hold onto their youth? Mike Trout, Mookie Betts, Jose Altuve, Aaron Judge; these are the players you should be talking about over and over and over again. Not Hank Aaron, Roberto Clemente and Stan Musial*. The NBA and NFL do not do this as much as MLB does.

* And I am (and was) a huge baseball historian. I love the game's links to the past, but most kids don't care about that. At all. They want their heroes to be great and if MLB is telling them that they're all second place to guys who played when their grandparents were kids, eventually they're going to believe them.