2012 awards thread

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.

maybe there's some wonderful BP study on this, but i think the TC standards are affected more by randomness than league hitting. between the three stats every year is usually gonna have at least one league leader (if not all three) that looks freaky.

like 1968 the AL homer leader still had 44, higher than most years in the 70s, then in the 70s you had rod carew putting up nuts BAs

Internet Baseball Awards -- only surprise is Showalter.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=18852

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=18879

Karl Rove is calling Adrian Beltre in a landslide

Haven't read it--I'm sure it's good--but does anyone need Nate Silver to point this out?

I know of three such people -- Silver fans who can't believe Trout would be considered.

I sent them the link and haven't received any replies.

Karl Rove is calling Adrian Beltre in a landslide

Great! Look forward to seeing him on ESPN tonight: "How do we know these results are real? Sorry, I need to see actual ballots." (Walks off set in a rage.)

-but does anyone need Nate Silver to point this out?

politically minded 538/NYT readers might need Nate Silver to point it out

Yeah, I completely wasn't thinking about who reads 538 when I wrote that--it's the perfect venue for such a piece. He'll probably be introducing basic sabermetrics to a large number of readers.

david price al cy

boo

Sounds exceptionally close: 14 first-places for Price, 13 for Verlander.

Blame southern California - 2 writers put it price/weaver/verlander

Oh well.

ps would be happy to see kershaw repeat but dickey should take it bc baseball is awesome

dickey!