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.
2021 MLB Awards
- Thread starter Kliq
- Start date
24 combined wins for the two CYA winners is pretty wild, considering they were both starters. Shows how much the game has changed!
Not to mention that Urias won 20 games and only got 3 measly 5th place votes.
Phillies had the Cy Young runner-up, the MVP runner-up (EDIT: WINNER), and won 82 games.
Last edited:
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!
Max also had lower H/9 and WHIP. Looks like the solo HR's did him in. Burnes allowed much fewer HR's.
Still kind of feels wrong awarding a SP the CY with 11 wins, but can't really be upset at this one.
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.
I don't know that voters thought this way systematically, but this was a unique year for having followed the shortened 2020 in which Lance Lynn led the league with 84 IP. I think this could impact the way you evaluate IP totals this year in either direction. You could be a bit more forgiving of lower IP totals, because this year was just what it was and no one should be expected to go 200 IP after having only thrown 70 or so. On the other hand, you could think that having thrown over 200 IP is especially impressive under the circumstances.
Honestly, I am torn on this point, but happy with the Burnes choice overall. His streak of 58 Ks without a BB was on its own so awesome.
Honestly, I am torn on this point, but happy with the Burnes choice overall. His streak of 58 Ks without a BB was on its own so awesome.
I'm 100% on team Speier for Cy Young voting. Just looking at WAR doesn't tell you what actually happened on the field during the season. You're not voting for the guy who should have had the best pitching season, you're voting for the one who did. And if you're just going to chalk up everything bad that happens when a ball is put in play to bad luck, shouldn't Burnes' crazy low 6.4% homer per fly ball rate be discounted as good luck?
Scherzer and Wheeler pitched many more innings and prevented actual runs from scoring at just about the same level. Burnes had an interesting control streak, but he'd be behind those two for me.
Scherzer and Wheeler pitched many more innings and prevented actual runs from scoring at just about the same level. Burnes had an interesting control streak, but he'd be behind those two for me.
Speaking of which, will anyone ever win 27 games in our lifetimes again?
Starters aren't getting much more than 30 starts in a season. So probably not.
That's an easy "no"... unless some team decides to do it as a gimmick. Technically, it's easier for someone to rack up wins now that starters are routinely pitching less than five innings. A team would just need to keep going to the same reliever when they're winning after four innings. However, I can't envision a scenario where anyone would think such a mockery of the game/statistic would be a good thing.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
It wasn't as clear a case of telegraphing as it first appeared. Otherwise, Ray would have been snubbed.
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.