Bartolo Colon Wins AL Cy Young [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

cdxx

11-08-2005, 03:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
dude, he won?

that's BS in my book. i think Santana should have won again.

what was Colon's ERA?

[/ QUOTE ]

it's not that bad. every AL pitcher pretty much sucked it up sometime during the season, and too many writers don't like voting for a reliever/closer when it's really that close. santana snub is a bit disappointing, as he had 3 CG and 2 shutouts.

of course, personally, i'd rather see rivera win it rather than colon, and arguably, had he not blown those two on opening weekend, he'd probably have it. (another reason to hate the redsox).

Jorge10

11-08-2005, 04:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He didn't have all that impressive of a season... but he won 20 games, that's good enough for me!

He got 17 firsts and 11 seconds. Rivera got 8 firsts. I'm going to refrain from saying who I think should have won (you get one guess) but this voting is just miles off what it should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that Rodriguez had more saves than Rivera right?

No one had a dominating year in the American League when it comes to pitching last year. Colon got 20 wins good enough.

Also you didnt give a reason why Rivera should win? He didnt have the most saves? Because he is a Yankee is not a reason.

pokerdirty

11-08-2005, 04:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Also you didnt give a reason why Rivera should win? He didnt have the most saves? Because he is a Yankee is not a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just for what he did for his team. The bullpen was so weak, and the starting pitching was unreliable for the first 1/2+, and when he came in, you knew he was going to get the job done.

Voltron87

11-08-2005, 04:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You do realize that Rodriguez had more saves than Rivera right?

[/ QUOTE ]

this doesn't mean much to me

pokerdirty

11-08-2005, 04:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You do realize that Rodriguez had more saves than Rivera right?

[/ QUOTE ]

this doesn't mean much to me

[/ QUOTE ]

just like wins shouldn't matter as much as they do in the cy young voting

Dominic

11-08-2005, 04:46 PM

Colon deserves it. Period.

Voltron87

11-08-2005, 04:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Colon deserves it. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

thnx 4 contributing

Jorge10

11-08-2005, 04:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also you didnt give a reason why Rivera should win? He didnt have the most saves? Because he is a Yankee is not a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just for what he did for his team. The bullpen was so weak, and the starting pitching was unreliable for the first 1/2+, and when he came in, you knew he was going to get the job done.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Yankee bias is strong in this one.

Rivera pitches for 1 stinkin innning. The Yankees are usually winning at the time. He wasnt perfect. Thats why he doesnt deserve it.

In order for a closer to win it he has to be perfect, he was not perfect. I could even argue Rodriguez was a better closer. He had more saves no?

You guys are saying he should have won the Cy Young when he wasnt even the best closer?

Also Wins could be questioned when it comes to starting pitching because of the run support. They can be great pitchers with great ERA and not win because they keep losing 2-1 games like Clemens.

Saves cannot be ignored because its what closers do. Its the whole point of them being out there. If they dont save games everything else is worthless. They cant complain that run support wasnt there because if they werent winning it wouldnt be a save situation.

PassiveCaller

11-08-2005, 05:02 PM

It should have been Santana or Buerhle and both are far greater choices then Rivera, or Colon.

Puzzling choice really but not all that surprising since the voters love wins.

pokerdirty

11-08-2005, 05:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also you didnt give a reason why Rivera should win? He didnt have the most saves? Because he is a Yankee is not a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just for what he did for his team. The bullpen was so weak, and the starting pitching was unreliable for the first 1/2+, and when he came in, you knew he was going to get the job done.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Yankee bias is strong in this one.

Rivera pitches for 1 stinkin innning. The Yankees are usually winning at the time. He wasnt perfect. Thats why he doesnt deserve it.

In order for a closer to win it he has to be perfect, he was not perfect. I could even argue Rodriguez was a better closer. He had more saves no?

You guys are saying he should have won the Cy Young when he wasnt even the best closer?

Also Wins could be questioned when it comes to starting pitching because of the run support. They can be great pitchers with great ERA and not win because they keep losing 2-1 games like Clemens.

Saves cannot be ignored because its what closers do. Its the whole point of them being out there. If they dont save games everything else is worthless. They cant complain that run support wasnt there because if they werent winning it wouldnt be a save situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

K-Rod, 66 G, 45 S, 5 BS, 2.67 ERA
Rivera, 71 G, 43 S, 4 BS, 1.38 ERA

Voltron87

11-08-2005, 05:07 PM

How can you possibly argue that Rodriguez is a better closer? I'm really interested to hear how. Saves are a pretty useless stat, and even so Rodriguez only has 2 more than Rivera.

TheRover

11-08-2005, 05:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Puzzling choice really but not all that surprising since the voters are stupid fucknuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Voltron87

11-08-2005, 05:09 PM

rivera also leads in WHIP, .87 to 1.14, by ERA, 2.64 to 1.38, in K/BB, in BAA, he allowed less HR... theres no question here.

Jorge10

11-08-2005, 05:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How can you possibly argue that Rodriguez is a better closer? I'm really interested to hear how. Saves are a pretty useless stat, and even so Rodriguez only has 2 more than Rivera.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you insane? If saves are not important then what is important for a closer? I would think Blown Saves and Saves are the most important numbers because it tells you how efficient he is. Overall both are pretty even in those categories. He has a better ERA, but still its not enough to make him a candidate for the Cy Young.

Rivera had a slightly better year than K-Rod, but its not like he was that much better.

Voltron87

11-08-2005, 05:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can you possibly argue that Rodriguez is a better closer? I'm really interested to hear how. Saves are a pretty useless stat, and even so Rodriguez only has 2 more than Rivera.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you insane? If saves are not important then what is important for a closer? I would think Blown Saves and Saves are the most important numbers because it tells you how efficient he is. Overall both are pretty even in those categories. He has a better ERA, but still its not enough to make him a candidate for the Cy Young.

Rivera had a slightly better year than K-Rod, but its not like he was that much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

So... let me get this straight. this is genius. A 2 save lead makes up for Rodriguez having an ERA which is well over a point higher? And a WHIP which is .3 higher?

there is only one word for it and it is AWESOME.

Dominic

11-08-2005, 06:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Colon deserves it. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

thnx 4 contributing

[/ QUOTE ]

Angels beat the Yankees...nyaaa!

wayabvpar

11-08-2005, 06:19 PM

http://www.mugshots.com/IMAGES/Mugshot__Andre-the-Giant1.jpg

trotski

11-08-2005, 06:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.mugshots.com/IMAGES/Mugshot__Andre-the-Giant1.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

I just about sprayed my snickers bar all over my monitor.

pokerdirty

11-08-2005, 06:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I just about sprayed my snickers bar all over my monitor.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL how the [censored] would you do that?!?!?

samjjones

11-08-2005, 06:27 PM

Santana's stats >>> Colon's.

Dominic

11-08-2005, 06:37 PM

http://www.african-art-work.com/images/hulk-hogan-hollywood-cutout.jpg

Huskiez

11-08-2005, 06:39 PM

I made a post about Santana's superior stats a month ago, and will repeat some of it here.

Let's compare Santana and Colon:

Wins: Santana 16, Colon 21
Losses: Santana 7, Colon 8
CG: Santana 3, Colon 2
Shutouts: Santana 2, Colon 0
IP: Santana 231.2, Colon 222.2
ERA: Santana 2.97, Colon 3.48
WHIP: Santana 0.97, Colon 1.16
BAA: Santana .210, Colon .254
K: Santana 238, Colon 157
BB: Santana 45, Colon 43
K/BB: Santana 5.29, Colon 3.65
H: Santana 180, Colon 215
HR: Santana 22, Colon 26
QS: Santana 24, Colon 21

The only significant category Colon beats Santana in is wins (and walks). How can you justify giving Cy Young to a pitcher who is clearly outmatched? Because he won 5 more games? Six times this year, Santana went at least 7 innings and gave up 2 runs or fewer, and received a ND or L. Blame his terrible team for lack of run support. Santana's run support was 4.70, Colon's 6.02. Don't fault the pitcher for putting his team in a much better position to get wins.

MCS

11-08-2005, 06:45 PM

It baffles me how baseball writers know SO LITTLE about the sport they cover!

I get mad every time I think about baseball.

LoaferGee12

11-08-2005, 07:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also you didnt give a reason why Rivera should win? He didnt have the most saves? Because he is a Yankee is not a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just for what he did for his team. The bullpen was so weak, and the starting pitching was unreliable for the first 1/2+, and when he came in, you knew he was going to get the job done.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Yankee bias is strong in this one.

Rivera pitches for 1 stinkin innning. The Yankees are usually winning at the time. He wasnt perfect. Thats why he doesnt deserve it.

In order for a closer to win it he has to be perfect, he was not perfect. I could even argue Rodriguez was a better closer. He had more saves no?

You guys are saying he should have won the Cy Young when he wasnt even the best closer?

Also Wins could be questioned when it comes to starting pitching because of the run support. They can be great pitchers with great ERA and not win because they keep losing 2-1 games like Clemens.

Saves cannot be ignored because its what closers do. Its the whole point of them being out there. If they dont save games everything else is worthless. They cant complain that run support wasnt there because if they werent winning it wouldnt be a save situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

K-Rod, 66 G, 45 S, 5 BS, 2.67 ERA
Rivera, 71 G, 43 S, 4 BS, 1.38 ERA

[/ QUOTE ]

Jorge, please tell me you aren't trying to argue against this.

LoaferGee12

11-08-2005, 07:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I made a post about Santana's superior stats a month ago, and will repeat some of it here.

Let's compare Santana and Colon:

Wins: Santana 16, Colon 21
Losses: Santana 7, Colon 8
CG: Santana 3, Colon 2
Shutouts: Santana 2, Colon 0
IP: Santana 231.2, Colon 222.2
ERA: Santana 2.97, Colon 3.48
WHIP: Santana 0.97, Colon 1.16
BAA: Santana .210, Colon .254
K: Santana 238, Colon 157
BB: Santana 45, Colon 43
K/BB: Santana 5.29, Colon 3.65
H: Santana 180, Colon 215
HR: Santana 22, Colon 26
QS: Santana 24, Colon 21

The only significant category Colon beats Santana in is wins (and walks). How can you justify giving Cy Young to a pitcher who is clearly outmatched? Because he won 5 more games? Six times this year, Santana went at least 7 innings and gave up 2 runs or fewer, and received a ND or L. Blame his terrible team for lack of run support. Santana's run support was 4.70, Colon's 6.02. Don't fault the pitcher for putting his team in a much better position to get wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that's ridiculous. Awards suck /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Jorge10

11-08-2005, 07:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also you didnt give a reason why Rivera should win? He didnt have the most saves? Because he is a Yankee is not a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just for what he did for his team. The bullpen was so weak, and the starting pitching was unreliable for the first 1/2+, and when he came in, you knew he was going to get the job done.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Yankee bias is strong in this one.

Rivera pitches for 1 stinkin innning. The Yankees are usually winning at the time. He wasnt perfect. Thats why he doesnt deserve it.

In order for a closer to win it he has to be perfect, he was not perfect. I could even argue Rodriguez was a better closer. He had more saves no?

You guys are saying he should have won the Cy Young when he wasnt even the best closer?

Also Wins could be questioned when it comes to starting pitching because of the run support. They can be great pitchers with great ERA and not win because they keep losing 2-1 games like Clemens.

Saves cannot be ignored because its what closers do. Its the whole point of them being out there. If they dont save games everything else is worthless. They cant complain that run support wasnt there because if they werent winning it wouldnt be a save situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

K-Rod, 66 G, 45 S, 5 BS, 2.67 ERA
Rivera, 71 G, 43 S, 4 BS, 1.38 ERA

[/ QUOTE ]

Jorge, please tell me you aren't trying to argue against this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really I was arguing that Rivera shouldnt be considered for a Cy Young because he didnt have a Gagne like season, but the Yankee fans cant admit that you have to be perfect to win the Cy Young as a closer.

rwperu34

11-08-2005, 07:51 PM

The writers were so far off on this one. It's not quite as bad as Pendleton winning in '91. But this is bad.

Mariano Rivera was CLEARLY the best AND most important pitcher in the AL in 2005. He was the glue (much like he has been during the current Yankees dynasty) that kept the pitching staff of the AL East winners together. He had the best year by far. If someone tried to tell me that Rivera was the most valuble player in the American League, I wouldn't argue. Nobody did more for thier team than he did. Nobody. To give the Cy Young award to Colon is one of the worst votes in history. It really makes me wonder whether or not these morons that vote are going to have enough sense to put Mariano Rivera in the Hall of Fame?

I just can't take it anymore. I've cancelled my subscription to MLB.TV. I will not watch a single game on TV in 2006. There is only one thing that will take me into a Major League stadium next season (it's a long story for another time). I'm not going to read anything these bufoons have to write, and I will not listen to anything they have to say. It is obvious to me that the MLB media (in the AL at least) has very little knowledge of or respect for the game.

rwperu34

11-08-2005, 07:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can you possibly argue that Rodriguez is a better closer? I'm really interested to hear how. Saves are a pretty useless stat, and even so Rodriguez only has 2 more than Rivera.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you insane? If saves are not important then what is important for a closer? I would think Blown Saves and Saves are the most important numbers because it tells you how efficient he is. Overall both are pretty even in those categories. He has a better ERA, but still its not enough to make him a candidate for the Cy Young.

Rivera had a slightly better year than K-Rod, but its not like he was that much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the close scale of 1-10, 10 being best, K-Rod was about a 7 and Rivera was a 10.

rwperu34

11-08-2005, 07:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also you didnt give a reason why Rivera should win? He didnt have the most saves? Because he is a Yankee is not a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just for what he did for his team. The bullpen was so weak, and the starting pitching was unreliable for the first 1/2+, and when he came in, you knew he was going to get the job done.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Yankee bias is strong in this one.

Rivera pitches for 1 stinkin innning. The Yankees are usually winning at the time. He wasnt perfect. Thats why he doesnt deserve it.

In order for a closer to win it he has to be perfect, he was not perfect. I could even argue Rodriguez was a better closer. He had more saves no?

You guys are saying he should have won the Cy Young when he wasnt even the best closer?

Also Wins could be questioned when it comes to starting pitching because of the run support. They can be great pitchers with great ERA and not win because they keep losing 2-1 games like Clemens.

Saves cannot be ignored because its what closers do. Its the whole point of them being out there. If they dont save games everything else is worthless. They cant complain that run support wasnt there because if they werent winning it wouldnt be a save situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

K-Rod, 66 G, 45 S, 5 BS, 2.67 ERA
Rivera, 71 G, 43 S, 4 BS, 1.38 ERA

[/ QUOTE ]

Jorge, please tell me you aren't trying to argue against this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really I was arguing that Rivera shouldnt be considered for a Cy Young because he didnt have a Gagne like season, but the Yankee fans cant admit that you have to be perfect to win the Cy Young as a closer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, perfect. Like Mark Davis, Steve Bedrosian, and Willie Hernandez.

Jack of Arcades

11-08-2005, 08:00 PM

Holy [censored] do you have problems.

MCS

11-08-2005, 08:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Mariano Rivera was CLEARLY the best AND most important pitcher in the AL in 2005...If someone tried to tell me that Rivera was the most valuble player in the American League, I wouldn't argue. Nobody did more for thier team than he did. Nobody.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're way off. Maybe you can argue for Rivera. I would go with Santana, but whatever.

But either way, it's pretty obvious that Rivera was not "CLEARLY" the best pitcher in the AL.

A-Rod was more important to the Yankees than Rivera. There are other guys too.

lastchance

11-08-2005, 09:03 PM

Santana, by a mile here. You would have to pitch a ton of innings and be an absolute shutdown closer to even think about giving a closer a Cy Young over a starter. Rivera pitched half the innings Santana did.

Santana.

Voltron87

11-08-2005, 09:34 PM

Couple things

-My point about this award being given to Colon being ridiculous was not just because it was not given to Rivera. That is a factor, as I think Rivera is more qualified for it than Colon, but it's also because Colon was not even nearly the best starter. That would have been Santana. So we are not talking about picking the 2nd most deserving pitcher instead of the 1st, we are talking about much worse than that.

-I thought Rivera would win it as almost a "lifetime achievement" thing. He is clearly the best closer this year, and is arguably the best closer ever. No starters on top teams really had exceptionally amazing seasons. Usually how good your team is and what they accomplish makes a big difference, that's pretty obviously what torpedoed Santana.

-It's really, really, really scary that guys like Murray Chass get to vote on these things.

Jim Kuhn

11-08-2005, 11:44 PM

I think this means the idiots will vote Andrew Jones MVP in the National League. Home Runs = Wins to sportswriters.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4u
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

rwperu34

11-09-2005, 03:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think this means the idiots will vote Andrew Jones MVP in the National League. Home Runs = Wins to sportswriters.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4u
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

If Andruw Jones got the NL MVP, it wouldn't be a slight at all. My personal vote would go to Pujols, but Jones is a close second.

imported_The Vibesman

11-09-2005, 10:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Mariano Rivera was CLEARLY the best AND most important pitcher in the AL in 2005. He was the glue (much like he has been during the current Yankees dynasty) that kept the pitching staff of the AL East winners together. He had the best year by far. If someone tried to tell me that Rivera was the most valuble player in the American League, I wouldn't argue. Nobody did more for thier team than he did. Nobody.

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy had a great year, always has a great year, but come on. The overwhelming majority of times he comes into the game the Yankees have the lead. Somehow, the rest of the team is able to get and hold a lead without him on the mound. So they don't need him to get the lead. MVP is a real stretch.

samjjones

11-09-2005, 12:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this means the idiots will vote Andrew Jones MVP in the National League. Home Runs = Wins to sportswriters.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4u
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

If Andruw Jones got the NL MVP, it wouldn't be a slight at all. My personal vote would go to Pujols, but Jones is a close second.

[/ QUOTE ]
Jones only hit .260. Pujols all the way.

11-09-2005, 12:27 PM

This is correct, and this is who I guessed and thought would win.

No way Rivera gets it.

Santana was close, but he got it last year and it's very difficult to win back-to-back, especially considering he wasn't even close to being as dominant as he was last year.

I disagree with Buehrle being so far down the list. His ERA was very low and he led the AL in IP. He "only" won 16 games but he obviously pitched deep into many games, with a low ERA so he could easily have won about 22 games.

11-09-2005, 12:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this means the idiots will vote Andrew Jones MVP in the National League. Home Runs = Wins to sportswriters.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4u
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

If Andruw Jones got the NL MVP, it wouldn't be a slight at all. My personal vote would go to Pujols, but Jones is a close second.

[/ QUOTE ]
Jones only hit .260. Pujols all the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jones was more valuable to his team than Pujols and Lee.

Voltron87

11-09-2005, 01:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mariano Rivera was CLEARLY the best AND most important pitcher in the AL in 2005. He was the glue (much like he has been during the current Yankees dynasty) that kept the pitching staff of the AL East winners together. He had the best year by far. If someone tried to tell me that Rivera was the most valuble player in the American League, I wouldn't argue. Nobody did more for thier team than he did. Nobody.

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy had a great year, always has a great year, but come on. The overwhelming majority of times he comes into the game the Yankees have the lead. Somehow, the rest of the team is able to get and hold a lead without him on the mound. So they don't need him to get the lead. MVP is a real stretch.

[/ QUOTE ]

This make no sense. Do you realize how much trouble the Yankees had keeping leads last year? Rivera made an enormus difference. Without Rivera, the Yankees only ave Gordon in their pen, and Gordon pitched in as few big spots as possible. We are talking about a team that would score 11 runs early and then let it drop to 11-9. I think it is a huge stretch to say Rivera was the Cy last year, but don't underestimate what he contributed to the Yankees. As someone who watched the games he was a huge weapon in every single close game. Saying the Yankees already had a lead when he came in is just dumb, keeping a lead is important too.

Voltron87

11-09-2005, 01:08 PM

Explain to me how Colon was better than Santana. The only statistics Colon leads in are W and IP. W can be entirely chalked up to the teams that they were on. Santana led in WHIP, ERA, BAA, BB/K, all by a big margin.

UCF THAYER

11-09-2005, 01:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this means the idiots will vote Andrew Jones MVP in the National League. Home Runs = Wins to sportswriters.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4u
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

If Andruw Jones got the NL MVP, it wouldn't be a slight at all. My personal vote would go to Pujols, but Jones is a close second.

[/ QUOTE ]
Jones only hit .260. Pujols all the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jones was more valuable to his team than Pujols and Lee.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has already been discussed many times and you are wrong. Unless you can come up with any sort of evidence that your statement is true?

imported_The Vibesman

11-09-2005, 01:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mariano Rivera was CLEARLY the best AND most important pitcher in the AL in 2005. He was the glue (much like he has been during the current Yankees dynasty) that kept the pitching staff of the AL East winners together. He had the best year by far. If someone tried to tell me that Rivera was the most valuble player in the American League, I wouldn't argue. Nobody did more for thier team than he did. Nobody.

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy had a great year, always has a great year, but come on. The overwhelming majority of times he comes into the game the Yankees have the lead. Somehow, the rest of the team is able to get and hold a lead without him on the mound. So they don't need him to get the lead. MVP is a real stretch.

[/ QUOTE ]

This make no sense. Do you realize how much trouble the Yankees had keeping leads last year? Rivera made an enormus difference. Without Rivera, the Yankees only ave Gordon in their pen, and Gordon pitched in as few big spots as possible. We are talking about a team that would score 11 runs early and then let it drop to 11-9. I think it is a huge stretch to say Rivera was the Cy last year, but don't underestimate what he contributed to the Yankees. As someone who watched the games he was a huge weapon in every single close game. Saying the Yankees already had a lead when he came in is just dumb, keeping a lead is important too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. Are you saying you think he was the Yankees MVP, which is the point I was disputing? The poster I was replying to said he wouldn't argue with Rivera being AL MVP. That's ridiculous, no matter how much you worship Rivera. The best closer of all time is still just a closer.

Do you think he's even close to AL MVP?

tolbiny

11-09-2005, 02:46 PM

"Saying the Yankees already had a lead when he came in is just dumb, keeping a lead is important too."

You basically made his point in your post- its not that Riviera wasn't important to his team, but htat others are more important. Without A-rod in the middle of the lineup how many times are they in the lead to give it to Mariano.

Voltron87

11-09-2005, 03:08 PM

You must have missed it when I said "I think it is a huge stretch to say Rivera was the Cy last year". Same goes for MVP. What I was disputing was this:

[ QUOTE ]
Somehow, the rest of the team is able to get and hold a lead without him on the mound. So they don't need him to get the lead.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the bit that doesn't make sense. If you want to say he isn't the MVP, this isn't the way to do it.

11-09-2005, 03:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me how Colon was better than Santana. The only statistics Colon leads in are W and IP. W can be entirely chalked up to the teams that they were on. Santana led in WHIP, ERA, BAA, BB/K, all by a big margin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Save one bad outing in which he gave up 9 runs to Alex Rodriquez alone back in May, Colon was the Ace of the American League. Last year Santana was. Not this year.

B00T

11-09-2005, 03:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I thought Rivera would win it as almost a "lifetime achievement" thing. He is clearly the best closer this year, and is arguably the best closer ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing dumber than judging the Cy Young winner by wins, would be doing something such as this.

TheRover

11-09-2005, 03:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me how Colon was better than Santana. The only statistics Colon leads in are W and IP. W can be entirely chalked up to the teams that they were on. Santana led in WHIP, ERA, BAA, BB/K, all by a big margin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Save one bad outing in which he gave up 9 runs to Alex Rodriquez alone back in May, Colon was the Ace of the American League. Last year Santana was. Not this year.

[/ QUOTE ]

I declare Jose Contreras the ace of the American League.

andyfox

11-09-2005, 04:38 PM

Colon was not the best pitcher in the league, but he wasn't a terrible selection. Jones would be:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/winshares/i...;leagueLimit=NL (http://www.hardballtimes.com/winshares/index.php?sort=total&sort2=WSAB&limit1=&limit2=&le agueLimit=NL)

Voltron87

11-09-2005, 05:23 PM

Voltron87

11-09-2005, 05:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought Rivera would win it as almost a "lifetime achievement" thing. He is clearly the best closer this year, and is arguably the best closer ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing dumber than judging the Cy Young winner by wins, would be doing something such as this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is how it should be decided, but I thought that it was what might have inspired the voters to give it to him. Do you understand the difference there?

My main point, which I made very clear, is that this selection is awful not because it wasn't given to Rivera, it's because if you want to go down that avenue of logic it wasn't even given to the best starter alternative to Rivera.

11-09-2005, 06:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me how Colon was better than Santana. The only statistics Colon leads in are W and IP. W can be entirely chalked up to the teams that they were on. Santana led in WHIP, ERA, BAA, BB/K, all by a big margin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Save one bad outing in which he gave up 9 runs to Alex Rodriquez alone back in May, Colon was the Ace of the American League. Last year Santana was. Not this year.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF

lol

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is he was having an "off-day" and Scioscia didn't protect him by pulling him in that game. After A-Rod hit two bombs off him. A two run homer, three run homer and granny.

Could have been Barts decision to stay in the game. But many coaches would pull him to protect his numbers, I think?

I could be wrong of course because it was so early in the year. But one bad outing doth not make bad a pitcher! IMO, a low ERA almost ALWAYS means the pitcher gave his team a chance to win, but a high ERA could mean that pitcher gave his team a chance to win every single time but once.

Bart got victories. His ERA may have been well above 3, but he was a winner this year. <closing eyes to playoffs>.

ERA should be looked at on a game-by-game basis. This is basically the "quality start" stat. But then you get into the whole "pitching to the score" argument and I don't want to go down that route agian! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Huskiez

11-09-2005, 08:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
ERA should be looked at on a game-by-game basis. This is basically the "quality start" stat.

[/ QUOTE ]

But Santana had more quality starts than Colon, 24 to 21.

CCass

11-09-2005, 08:17 PM

No starter has ever won the Cy Young award with 16 (or fewer) wins in a season (Sutcliffe had 4 before he got to the Cubs). So there is no doubt that Colon's 20 wins "look" better than Santana's 16 wins. Couple that with the fact that the voters like to give awards to players on contending teams (sorry D. Lee), and Colon starts looking better and better.

I am not saying that Colon is better than Santana (he isn't), but I understand why the voters chose him over Santana.

jesusarenque

11-09-2005, 10:07 PM

I can't believe people are arguing over this. Johan Santana had a better year than Bartolo Colon. Anyone who says differently simply does not know what he is talking about. It is not subjective, it is not an opinion. This year Santana was better than Colon (by a lot).

battschr

11-09-2005, 11:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe people are arguing over this. Johan Santana had a better year than Bartolo Colon. Anyone who says differently simply does not know what he is talking about. It is not subjective, it is not an opinion. This year Santana was better than Colon (by a lot).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is 100% correct. Also, Win Shares suck if they think that AJones was the 26th best player in the NL. He was a top-5 player, but no better than third, as Pujols and Lee were both better (and more valuable, whatever the hell that means).

Jack of Arcades

11-10-2005, 01:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe people are arguing over this. Johan Santana had a better year than Bartolo Colon. Anyone who says differently simply does not know what he is talking about. It is not subjective, it is not an opinion. This year Santana was better than Colon (by a lot).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is 100% correct. Also, Win Shares suck if they think that AJones was the 26th best player in the NL. He was a top-5 player, but no better than third, as Pujols and Lee were both better (and more valuable, whatever the hell that means).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not gonna try to name 25 players better than AJ, but I can definitely name at least 5.

Pujols, Lee, Bay, Cabrera, B. Giles

Consideration also goes to: Chase Utley, Carlos Delgado, Morgan Ensberg, David Wright, Bobby Abreu, Todd Helton, and Jeff Kent.

rwperu34

11-10-2005, 01:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe people are arguing over this. Johan Santana had a better year than Bartolo Colon. Anyone who says differently simply does not know what he is talking about. It is not subjective, it is not an opinion. This year Santana was better than Colon (by a lot).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is 100% correct. Also, Win Shares suck if they think that AJones was the 26th best player in the NL. He was a top-5 player, but no better than third, as Pujols and Lee were both better (and more valuable, whatever the hell that means).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not gonna try to name 25 players better than AJ, but I can definitely name at least 5.

Pujols, Lee, Bay, Cabrera, B. Giles

Consideration also goes to: Chase Utley, Carlos Delgado, Morgan Ensberg, David Wright, Bobby Abreu, Todd Helton, and Jeff Kent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations, you named exactly one. And that's even arguable.

andyfox

11-10-2005, 02:31 AM

Jones finished 12th in the league in OPS. He finished 5th in slugging, and 41st in on-base percentage.

Jack of Arcades

11-10-2005, 02:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe people are arguing over this. Johan Santana had a better year than Bartolo Colon. Anyone who says differently simply does not know what he is talking about. It is not subjective, it is not an opinion. This year Santana was better than Colon (by a lot).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is 100% correct. Also, Win Shares suck if they think that AJones was the 26th best player in the NL. He was a top-5 player, but no better than third, as Pujols and Lee were both better (and more valuable, whatever the hell that means).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not gonna try to name 25 players better than AJ, but I can definitely name at least 5.

Pujols, Lee, Bay, Cabrera, B. Giles

Consideration also goes to: Chase Utley, Carlos Delgado, Morgan Ensberg, David Wright, Bobby Abreu, Todd Helton, and Jeff Kent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations, you named exactly one. And that's even arguable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, there's no way that Andruw Jones was considerably better than anyone I named. whooo, 51 homers! with a .360 OBP and a .218 BARISP.

battschr

11-10-2005, 03:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe people are arguing over this. Johan Santana had a better year than Bartolo Colon. Anyone who says differently simply does not know what he is talking about. It is not subjective, it is not an opinion. This year Santana was better than Colon (by a lot).

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, fair enough, I even agree, but David Eckstein?

This is 100% correct. Also, Win Shares suck if they think that AJones was the 26th best player in the NL. He was a top-5 player, but no better than third, as Pujols and Lee were both better (and more valuable, whatever the hell that means).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not gonna try to name 25 players better than AJ, but I can definitely name at least 5.

Pujols, Lee, Bay, Cabrera, B. Giles

Consideration also goes to: Chase Utley, Carlos Delgado, Morgan Ensberg, David Wright, Bobby Abreu, Todd Helton, and Jeff Kent.

[/ QUOTE ]

cdxx

11-10-2005, 02:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Could have been Barts decision to stay in the game. But many coaches would pull him to protect his numbers, I think?

[/ QUOTE ]

while i am sure that happens sometimes (but very rarely), managers pull pitchers because they think that's the best move to give the team a chance. i hardly think that colon would be pulled to protect his numbers. he'd be pulled because he didn't have his best stuff that day.

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, a low ERA almost ALWAYS means the pitcher gave his team a chance to win, but a high ERA could mean that pitcher gave his team a chance to win every single time but once.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is wrong. over 200+IP in order to raise the ERA by 1, the pitcher would need to give up 22+ runs over his normal average in that one bad outing. so, a pitcher like colon would need to give up 25 ER in a game. that's more than one bad outing. a bad outing can be when you give up 5+ runs, considering that you are probably not doing it over 9 innings either.

9 runs given up to ARod raised colon's ERA by at most .35, still waaaayyy over santana's ERA.