2011 MLB ROYs will be?

[CubsFan13]

[quote="Dice-K Collector":1txhjoq8]

[quote="Dice-K Collector":1txhjoq8]

How did it take until the 10th post for Hellickson's name to come up? Neither Trumbo nor Nova deserve anything close to ROY.

Had Lawrie and/or Jennings been up earlier, it would almost certainly belong to one of them. But for now it should be Hellickson followed by Hosmer.

Novas is 15-4, how the heck does 15-4 not deserve rookie of the year ?!?
And Trumbo has 9 more HRs & 11 more RBIs than Hosmer, granted hosmer has a better average... but I still give Trumbo the edge!

Id vote Nova, then trumbo, then hellickson, then hosmer!
And yes, Im a yankee fan, but this was NOT biased!

That's cool that he has wins, but he's plays for the god damned Yankees who might win 100.

I'd say Hellickson, Nova, Trumbo, Hosmer.

True, but wins are wins, most important pitching stat! And when you have the most wins, especially when you have a sub 4.00 era (Hellicksons sub-3.00 is VERY impressive, but hes W/L Ratio is no where NEAR novas!

I don't know if you're being facetious but this is obviously dumb. Hellickson tops Nova in virtually everything important. Pitching Wins of course, are not important.

Trumbo has an OBP below .300. Power aside (which is nice, no doubt), he has been awful. I'd vote for Lawrie and Jennings before Trumbo.[/quote:1txhjoq8]

How are wins not important?![/quote:1txhjoq8]


Felix Hernandez won the CY Young award with a 13-12 record. Wins are less about the pitcher and more about the offense that is supporting the pitcher.

 

[Topnotchsy]

I always went by the fact that wins showed that you pitched well enough for your team to win the game... Im not going to argue more, you have a reasonable reason and all, but Im not going to change my opinions

The assumption you are making (I believe) is that a pitcher can alter his performance based on the moment, and that some pitchers are "clutch" or "know how to win" while others are not. If this is true, the number of wins that a pitcher has would be a useful indication of how good they are.

There are two arguments that I can think of to this idea.

The first stems from statistical data which seems to indicate that this is not the reality. The numbers indicate that over a large enough sample size, pitchers will regress to the mean. This means that for the most part, whether a pitcher does "just enough to win" or "just enough to lose" is largely the result of luck, and over time it should even itself out.

The second argument is more based on reasoning. It seems a little difficult to believe that a player pitches better at times when games are close, and worse when they are not. I think it is safe to assume that pitchers are trying to succeed every time they throw the ball, as are the hitters. There is no really good reason to assume that they can improve their performance consistently in the spotlight. While the players themselves may claim otherwise, it is very possible the players believe that they do raise their game simply because those moments where they succeeded in the spotlight are ones they remember the best (Kahneman and Tversky have done all sorts of studies on heuristics that explain this idea.)

Because of these two (somewhat connected ideas) it seems hard to buy the idea that a pitcher can "know how to win" and therefore is a better player.

 

[Dice-K Collector]

I always went by the fact that wins showed that you pitched well enough for your team to win the game... Im not going to argue more, you have a reasonable reason and all, but Im not going to change my opinions

The assumption you are making (I believe) is that a pitcher can alter his performance based on the moment, and that some pitchers are "clutch" or "know how to win" while others are not. If this is true, the number of wins that a pitcher has would be a useful indication of how good they are.

There are two arguments that I can think of to this idea.

The first stems from statistical data which seems to indicate that this is not the reality. The numbers indicate that over a large enough sample size, pitchers will regress to the mean. This means that for the most part, whether a pitcher does "just enough to win" or "just enough to lose" is largely the result of luck, and over time it should even itself out.

The second argument is more based on reasoning. It seems a little difficult to believe that a player pitches better at times when games are close, and worse when they are not. I think it is safe to assume that pitchers are trying to succeed every time they throw the ball, as are the hitters. There is no really good reason to assume that they can improve their performance consistently in the spotlight. While the players themselves may claim otherwise, it is very possible the players believe that they do raise their game simply because those moments where they succeeded in the spotlight are ones they remember the best (Kahneman and Tversky have done all sorts of studies on heuristics that explain this idea.)

Because of these two (somewhat connected ideas) it seems hard to buy the idea that a pitcher can "know how to win" and therefore is a better player.

Not at all, I know the pitcher pitches his best at all times, but lets say theyre up 5-1, they will give up an out to let the run score (which brings his ERA up) . I assume this has happened to Nova a lot, which is why I dont think his higher era should be taken seriously when arguing over whos a better pitcher. So he did what he had to to win... which is what I think is important.

 

[MacK]

[quote="Dice-K Collector":1vhmqprw]

[quote="Dice-K Collector":1vhmqprw]

[quote="Dice-K Collector":1vhmqprw]

How did it take until the 10th post for Hellickson's name to come up? Neither Trumbo nor Nova deserve anything close to ROY.

Had Lawrie and/or Jennings been up earlier, it would almost certainly belong to one of them. But for now it should be Hellickson followed by Hosmer.

Novas is 15-4, how the heck does 15-4 not deserve rookie of the year ?!?
And Trumbo has 9 more HRs & 11 more RBIs than Hosmer, granted hosmer has a better average... but I still give Trumbo the edge!

Id vote Nova, then trumbo, then hellickson, then hosmer!
And yes, Im a yankee fan, but this was NOT biased!

That's cool that he has wins, but he's plays for the god damned Yankees who might win 100.

I'd say Hellickson, Nova, Trumbo, Hosmer.

True, but wins are wins, most important pitching stat! And when you have the most wins, especially when you have a sub 4.00 era (Hellicksons sub-3.00 is VERY impressive, but hes W/L Ratio is no where NEAR novas!

I don't know if you're being facetious but this is obviously dumb. Hellickson tops Nova in virtually everything important. Pitching Wins of course, are not important.

Trumbo has an OBP below .300. Power aside (which is nice, no doubt), he has been awful. I'd vote for Lawrie and Jennings before Trumbo.

How are wins not important?![/quote:1vhmqprw]


I honestly don't know if you're joking/baiting or not. So I won't get too far into it. Wins are representative of the team and run support provided. For the purpose of one season they can literally tell you nothing about a pitcher's performance. Hellickson has been much, much better than Nova and it's really not even close.

Nova- 3.94 ERA, 1.35 WHIP, 50 BB, 87 K, 144 IP
Hellickson- 2.96 ERA, 1.14 WHIP, 59 BB, 109 K, 170 IP

A full run less per game. Allows fewer hits, strikes out more and 26 more IP. Again, it's not close.[/quote:1vhmqprw]

I always went by the fact that wins showed that you pitched well enough for your team to win the game... Im not going to argue more, you have a reasonable reason and all, but Im not going to change my opinions [/quote:1vhmqprw]

Just look at Doug Fister.. 3-12 with Seattle, but he pitched very solid with a WAR of 3.0. Yes, a win is great, but when your team gives you no run support, it's not your fault if you get the L.

 

[Austin]

AL - Hellickson
NL - Kimbrel

 

[padremurph]

[quote="Dice-K Collector":391zn0wh]
I always went by the fact that wins showed that you pitched well enough for your team to win the game... Im not going to argue more, you have a reasonable reason and all, but Im not going to change my opinions

The assumption you are making (I believe) is that a pitcher can alter his performance based on the moment, and that some pitchers are "clutch" or "know how to win" while others are not. If this is true, the number of wins that a pitcher has would be a useful indication of how good they are.

There are two arguments that I can think of to this idea.

The first stems from statistical data which seems to indicate that this is not the reality. The numbers indicate that over a large enough sample size, pitchers will regress to the mean. This means that for the most part, whether a pitcher does "just enough to win" or "just enough to lose" is largely the result of luck, and over time it should even itself out.

The second argument is more based on reasoning. It seems a little difficult to believe that a player pitches better at times when games are close, and worse when they are not. I think it is safe to assume that pitchers are trying to succeed every time they throw the ball, as are the hitters. There is no really good reason to assume that they can improve their performance consistently in the spotlight. While the players themselves may claim otherwise, it is very possible the players believe that they do raise their game simply because those moments where they succeeded in the spotlight are ones they remember the best (Kahneman and Tversky have done all sorts of studies on heuristics that explain this idea.)

Because of these two (somewhat connected ideas) it seems hard to buy the idea that a pitcher can "know how to win" and therefore is a better player.

Not at all, I know the pitcher pitches his best at all times, but lets say theyre up 5-1, they will give up an out to let the run score (which brings his ERA up) . I assume this has happened to Nova a lot, which is why I dont think his higher era should be taken seriously when arguing over whos a better pitcher. So he did what he had to to win... which is what I think is important.[/quote:391zn0wh]

Or if Nova played for the Padres, they would be down 0-1 and he would give up another run and be down 0-2. He would pitch great but the Padres bats wouldn't come around and he gets the L....

 

[just4tyty]

NL- Jesus Guzman

If he had same number as ab as freeman he beats him in every cat. except home runs. Being a Padre will get him no attention sadly