Since the ASB, Bruce has that .900+ OPS that some of think he should/could be putting up.Originally Posted by redsfaninbsg
Since the ASB, Bruce has that .900+ OPS that some of think he should/could be putting up.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
http://dalmady.blogspot.com
In the past 15 years, of 30 players that have won the award, only 3 players won on teams that won less than 90 games. Only one of those (A-Rod in 2003) was on a team that won fewer than 85 games.
So do I feel pretty confident that players on teams pacing for 77 and 79 wins respectively, one of whom tested positive for synthetic testosterone, will not win the award? Yes, I am fairly confident about that. There's a lot of empirical evidence that suggests it's highly unlikely.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
With Votto out and everybody else being RH, I wonder if Bruce is getting a bump from the other teams loading up with RHP.
All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!
And up until recently, King Felix would've never won the CY Young with his sub .500 on a losing team. Times change.
Once in a blue moon, a tornado touches down in Washington state too. Doesn't mean residents should start building storm shelters.
Nothing here has changed. Voters still prefer, and always have, players on teams with winning records -- especially ones that haven't been shown to be on PEDs.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
Again, awfully sure of yourself, despite a good recent example pointing to the contrary of your analysis.
Maybe not with the W-L record, but the Cy Young hasn't really favored players on relevant teams like the MVP award. Yeah he didn't have a lot of wins, but voters seem to realize they don't really matter.
The perception of what an MVP means has not changed to voters though. I think Brutus displayed that pretty conclusively and is right in his confidence that it's not likely to change either.
Your point misses the broader point. With the exclusion of a few select relievers, there has never been a Cy Young award winner with a wins-loss record/percentage even in the neighborhood of King Felix. Ever. So it's not so much about the Cy Young winner coming from a lousy team, it's the fact that a winner was chosen without the wins/losses having anything to do with the pick. It was unprecedented and that stat was always a factor up until then it sure appeared.
Things can easily change. No one would've predicted Felix actually was going to win it until he did.
No I get the point, I'm just saying its not really important. I think many people thought Hernandez could win the award because there was a recent enlightenment on the unimportance of pitcher W/L. That's not going to happen with the MVP coming from contenders, because that's just the nature of the award. It's basically almost part of the criteria.
A recent example you pointed wasn't even the same award we're discussing, and even if it were, some sound advice in probability: the outliers are outliers for a reason.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
Are the voters who vote for the MVP and the Cy Young different?
The difference btw Cy Young and MVP is that Cy Young has not been as strongly linked to team performance as MVP has been historically.
Like I said, Washington state has a tornado once in a while, but do you think it's a worthwhile investment to spend thousands on a storm shelter because of the one-in-a-million chance a tornado might touch down on your home? Sometimes things happen that don't happen often, but they're not suddenly a signal they'll happen more often.
Last edited by Brutus; 09-04-2012 at 06:44 AM.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
I don't think Bruce has a chance of MVP (although Bruce has had a nice season overall)
McCuthson has faded a bit recently, but his numbers still are vastly superior to Bruces' numbers.
If I had to pick a Reds' MVP, and limit it to position players, I'd pick Ludwick.
Ludwick was the main force that carried the team on that monster win streak that locked up first place. Bruce helped keep the team afloat in April (when Ludwick was MIA), and has helped them stay in first place in August, but I give Ludwick the nod for leading the dominating streak that got us to 1st place.
Ludwick has an edge on season OPS too.
Again, not a bashing Bruce post in any way. Bruce has been great this year, especially in Aug/April..
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
Bruce is red-hot right now. Maybe it's happening! Seriously...I know it's mostly wishful thinking but if he stays hot and hit's .280, could he not win it by default?
For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote