2012 awards thread

Let the ugliness begin.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2012-10-26/mlb-player-of-the-year-2012-miguel-cabrera-mike-trout-al-mvp-triple-crown?eadid=EL/SICOM&sct=mlb_t2_a5

Not really--I'm sure Trout's side is resigned to the inevitable by now. I said upthread that I thought Trout would get MVP even if Cabrera did it, but it became clear to me soon after that that wasn't the case. (Verducci picking Cabrera was key in rethinking that.) Actually, 108-71 doesn't seem that bad a split for Trout in a player's poll, as you know players are going to favor traditional/dinosaur/whatever metrics.

tbh, i can't get too worked up about one winning over the other either way.

Same.

someone voted for jeter

derek jeter is so vain

He probably thinks this award is about him.

lol

Meat Hook has spoken.

‏@DaMeathookYoung
Rookie of the Year Mike Trout and Bryce Harper. Cy Young is Gio Gonzalez and Fernando Rodney. MVP is Buster Posey and Miguel Cabrera.

o_O

no Jeter nomination for a Gold Glove? He had 200+ hits this year! #LiterallyKatrina

Not an award, but Schoenfield's year-end All-Star team--most are pretty easy picks.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/30663/wrapping-up-2012-the-all-mlb-team

BBWAA doing "finalist" crap... kinda adds nothing.

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/11/7/3615240/american-league-award-finalists-bbwaa-mvp-cy-young-rookie-year

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/11/7/3615406/baseball-awards-mvp-cy-young-rookie-of-the-year

wait this finalist stuff was that determined before voting or is it just like the top X vote-getters? that's what i thought it was like with gold gloves, like the voters were only allowed to vote for one of three at each position

top X getters

"finalists" ... ugh. What's the point if they're just the top X vote-getters? To reduce the possible element of surprise like when e.g. Morneau or Pudge won?

haven't looked, but i bet mlb.com has a fan poll.

I didn't really get this until reading about Johnny Cueto on SweetSpot. What a horrible, horrible idea.

man, dave cameron is not v camera friendly

One thing this awful new format will gum up is the MVP- and Cy Young-share stat on Baseball Reference. It's a junk stat, but it does tell you something about how players were perceived in their day.

Is it really going to be acknowledged in that way? I have my doubts. BR should just stick w/ where they finish, 2-3-4-5.

also, fucking ignore it.

I mean gum up in the sense that for all those years, players accumulated award-shares for any kind of finish. I'm sure they'll continue to tabulate the stat, but it's now two different standards for pre- and post-2012.

Ignore it? Well, sure--if I wanted to, I would.

but... it's not a separate or new distinction, just an artificial one. They're just announcing the upper crust early.

Okay--I've misinterpreted. When I read this, I understood it to mean that they narrow the field to a few players ahead of time, and they're the only ones eligible:

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/30678/johnny-cueto-was-jobbed

But if it just means that they announce the top few finishers ahead of time, and there'll still be the usual also-rans drawing votes after the top tier, no big deal (although completely unnecessary). So: never mind.

And actually, in this instance, I think your "ignore it" advice makes 100% sense; I will try to avoid, in future, finding out about these week-before "finalists."

yeah the BBWAA is not having 2 separate votes for these awards

interesting re: manager of the yr discussion on clubhouse confidential - cameron mentioned theres fangraphs metrics that have the o's as the best bullpen in the history of baseball o_O

lol cameron's been on that show? the whole thing is silly. brian kenny is like a teenager just discovering sabermetrics and he's SO EXCITED but he's also just more natural as a host who delegates talking time to the ex-players, so not only is it finally ~his time to shine~ but he's sort of a creepy robot about it

hilarious A+

i love brian kenny

his whole subtext in the show seems to be "they're finally letting me run free!" and it's cute

Cameron owns the last functional Flowbee imo.

my dad used one on himself a couple weeks ago

xp lol otm

Trout wins ROY unanimously; Romney camp reportedly shell-shocked.

Player 	        Team 	        1st 	2nd 	3rd 	Points
Mike Trout 	Angels 	        28 	0 	0 	140
Yoenis Cespedes Athletics 	0 	19 	6 	63
Yu Darvish 	Rangers 	0 	9 	19 	46
Wei-Yin Chen 	Orioles 	0 	0 	2 	2
Jarrod Parker 	Athletics 	0 	0 	1 	1
Bryce Harper 	Nationals 	16 	8 	8 	112
Wade Miley 	D-backs 	12 	13 	6 	105
Todd Frazier 	Reds 	        3 	7 	9 	45
Wilin Rosario 	Rockies 	1 	2 	1 	12
Norichika Aoki 	Brewers 	0 	2 	5 	11
Yonder Alonso 	Padres 	        0 	0 	1 	1
Matt Carpenter 	Cardinals 	0 	0 	1 	1
Jordan Pacheco 	Rockies 	0 	0 	1 	1

NL vote must be one of the closest ever. (Wasn't there a tie or two?)

Brisbee, SBN:

"All 32 ballots listed Harper, while Bill Center of the San Diego Union-Tribune left Miley off his ballot entirely. GET HIM, INTERNET!"

trout was the youngest ROY ever for a couple hours there

Gooden is still the youngest by a month.

MOYs: Davey Johnson, Bob Melvin

yeah i'm bummed too

SOME TIGERS FAN THIS GUY IS

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/the-statistical-case-against-cabrera-for-m-v-p

hallelujah

nice!

Haven't read it--I'm sure it's good--but does anyone need Nate Silver to point this out? I don't want to wade back into something we've discussed a zillion times, but I think anybody with an ability to look at a player's statistics in their totality realizes that Trout had the superior season. The people who vote for Cabrera will be split into two groups: a) writers who don't see that, who ignore defense and speed, and who don't judge offensive performance in context, and b) those who'd concede that Trout was statistically superior, but who do not automatically base their MVP vote wholly on statistics. You can call all that other stuff fiction, or narrative, or the last gasp of luddites, or whatever you want; the definition of "MVP" is open to interpretation enough that all that other stuff will continue to play a part in the vote. That's just the way it is--things are slowly changing, but you'll probably have to put up with it for a few more years. I would vote for Trout. I think it's funny that anyone would get worked up over a vote for Cabrera (and I'm guessing that Nate Silver is not one of those people).

I don't want to wade back into something we've discussed a zillion times,

Who are you and what have you done with clemenza?

p sure that article was nate's post-election gift to himself

or he's just trying to parlay the post-election ass-kissing for his real passion and finally write about baseball with some sort of upper hand

★ SAVE ★ NATE ★ SILVER ★

just because we've discussed something to death doesn't mean Nate Silver is done talking about it!

Just read it. It's very good, and persuasive, as I knew it would be. Most of his points are common to all the other Trout advocacy I read when the season ended, but I don't remember reading the WPA/clutch stuff elsewhere.

Who are you and what have you done with clemenza?

I know, I know--"I hesitate to wade back into..." would have been more accurate.

he brings up a good point i haven't seen much, that cabrera won the TC in one of the easiest years to win it in decades

i'd already read it!

(xpost) Interesting, but wouldn't that be a context thing? League leaders are league leaders within the context of each season; you can win a batting title hitting .301 if it's 1968, or finish second hitting .366 if it's 1997. So I'm not sure if that really mitigates a Triple Crown. Having said that, Cabrera definitely caught a break with Bautista's injury and Hamilton's problems.