Kimbrel, Hellickson Win Rookie Of The Year Awards

Braves closer Craig Kimbrel and Rays starter Jeremy Hellickson won the 2011 Rookie of the Year awards, announced the Baseball Writers Association of America.

Kimbrel received all 32 first-place votes, becoming the tenth unanimous selection.  Freddie Freeman, Vance Worley, Wilson Ramos, Josh Collmenter, Danny Espinosa, Darwin Barney, and Kenley Jansen also received votes in the NL.  Kimbrel tied John Axford for the NL saves lead with 46, setting a rookie record in the process.

Mark Trumbo, Eric Hosmer, Ivan Nova, Michael Pineda, Dustin Ackley, Desmond Jennings, and Jordan Walden followed Hellickson in the AL.  Hellickson posted a 2.95 ERA in 189 regular season innings for Tampa Bay this year.


Leave a Reply

192 Comments on "Kimbrel, Hellickson Win Rookie Of The Year Awards"


Member
disgustipated85
3 years 7 months ago

Trumbo got robbed.  At least it wasnt Nova.

Member
Mariners4Ever
3 years 7 months ago

I one up yours with Pineda! Not taking anything away with what Trumbo did however.

Member
roberty
3 years 7 months ago

I agree, Pineda was the best rookie in the AL this year.

Member
diesel2410
3 years 7 months ago

Hellickson ERA: 2.95
Pineda ERA: 3.74

No.

Member
setupunchtag
3 years 7 months ago

Using ERA as your stat for pitching is about as illuminating as using BA as your primary arguement for a hitter’s superiority; not as telling as you may think it is.

Member
diesel2410
3 years 7 months ago

I agree that ERA isn’t the best stat to compare two pitchers, but when it’s almost a full run better, you get the point that Hellickson probably had a better year

Member
setupunchtag
3 years 7 months ago

Not really. Hellickson, who I like, did not have as an impressive a pitching line as did Pineda.

Pineda 171 IP 133 H 55 BB’s 173 K’s 18 HR
Jeremy 189 IP 147 H 72 BB’s 117 K’s 21 HR

Pineda beat Hellickson in HR%, H/9, K/9, BB/9, and K/BB (by almost double Hellickson’s 3.15 to 1.63). Now, some of that might have to do with their respective parks, and I would have given the nod to Hellickson because of that, and that I think he plays in a tougher division. But statistically, other than ERA and # of IP, it would be hard to argue that Hellickson had a better line/year than Pineda.

Member
diesel2410
3 years 7 months ago

I didn’t know you had to have an impressive K/9 ratio to be a successful pitcher. And, he was pitching against NYY and BOS many more times. Give the kid a break, the AL East is the best division in baseball and he finished with an ERA under 3. Pretty damn successful to me.

Pineda pitches in the AL West, arguably the worst division in baseball…

Member
setupunchtag
3 years 7 months ago

See what you want to see. You take those two pitching lines and ask anyone in the game which one they’d choose and nobody picks the Hellickson line. And Hellickson actually pitched in a park that surpresses more runs than Safeco. I never said one had to have an impressive K/9, you did. But it IS indicative of one’s ability to miss bats, and moving forward, I’d much rather have Pineda (and Seattle is not my team). And as for the West, no, it’s not as good as the AL East (I think I mentioned that already but thanks for pointing it out again), but then which division has represented the AL the last two years in the WS?

Member
Guest
3 years 7 months ago

You do realize strikeouts don’t matter at all, right? Just outs.
And that awards are based a lot more on stats like BA, RBI, ERA, W, compared to xFIP and such, etc…

Member
setupunchtag
3 years 7 months ago

You do realize you’re arguing from 1976, don’t you? The last two Cy Youngs (Hernandez and Greinke) have been given out (correctly) because of a greater understanding of perepherals, and less reliant on stats like W’s.

Member
Guest
3 years 7 months ago

I haven’t a clue who Martinez is, but Greinke won because of his WHIP and ERA.
I’m just saying how it works, I’m not saying it’s the best system…
If someone had pitched as well as Greinke and had 2 more wins, they would have won.
It’s not like he won with a 4.40 ERA and a 2.20 xFIP.

Member
setupunchtag
3 years 7 months ago

“You do realize strikeouts don’t matter at all, right? Just outs.”

So when the bases are loaded with nobody out, a deep flyball is just as desirable as a K? Got it. It’s just an out. Oh, and an RBI…you know, one of those old stats that are important.

Member
Guest
3 years 7 months ago

If you don’t allow runs, no, it DOES NOT matter if you get Ks or not.

Member
bravesdude
3 years 7 months ago

I’ll take someone who only allows 3 runs a game compared to someone who allows 3.5+ and strikes out a few more any day . I know that I’ll be in a few more games a year with a chance to win with a pitcher who gets outs however he gets them .

Member
setupunchtag
3 years 7 months ago

“You do realize strikeouts don’t matter at all, right? Just outs.”

So when the bases are loaded with nobody out, a deep flyball is just as desirable as a K? Got it. It’s just an out. Oh, and an RBI…you know, one of those old stats that are important.

Member
setupunchtag
3 years 7 months ago

You do realize you’re arguing from 1976, don’t you? The last two Cy Youngs (Hernandez and Greinke) have been given out (correctly) because of a greater understanding of perepherals, and less reliant on stats like W’s.

Member
Guest
3 years 7 months ago

You do realize strikeouts don’t matter at all, right? Just outs.
And that awards are based a lot more on stats like BA, RBI, ERA, W, compared to xFIP and such, etc…

Member
MB923
3 years 7 months ago

“You take those two pitching lines and ask anyone in the game which one they’d choose and nobody picks the Hellickson line.”

Then that would mean Pineda should have been ROTY and not Hellickson.

Member
setupunchtag
3 years 7 months ago

I’d be fine with that. I think Hellickson pitched in a tougher division and he was part of the reason the Rays got into the post-season, so I give him the nod because of that (Joseph Jones in the post below makes a very good case that Hellickson did better against better competition). But yes, Pineda has the better line. I’m a Hosmer guy, but I still had Hellickson and Pineda #1 and #2, and had Pineda won, I wouldn’t have problems with that.

Member
NatsTown
3 years 7 months ago

Pineda WAR: 2.8
Nova WAR: 3.6
Hellickson WAR: 4.2

Member
setupunchtag
3 years 7 months ago

True enough, if you’re looking at B-R. Go to fangraphs, though, and it’s
Pineda WAR: 3.6
Nova WAR: 2.7
Hellickson WAR: 1.4

Interesting, eh? Now, I tend to agree more with B-R than fangraphs in this instance, but that they are different by so much makes me call into question BOTH of their WAR computations. So, though I think WAR is a nice starting place, I think one should look at more numbers and consider things like competition and the player’s impact on a post-season run, as well.

Member
NatsTown
3 years 7 months ago

Interesting. Didnt know they used different types of WAR. Thanks

Member
alxn
3 years 7 months ago

Trumbo’s sub-.300 OBP says otherwise.

Member
TheHotCorner
3 years 7 months ago

Sorry but I disagree that Trumbo got robbed.  Sure he hit 29 home runs but that .291 OBP surely did not help. Hellickson had a 2.95 ERA, gave up 4 or more runs like 3 times, a 1.153 WHIP, etc… I know some of his peripheral stats aren’t the greatest but I am not saying Hellickson should have won the ROY, just don’t think Trumbo should have.

Not to knock Trumbo but I don’t see how Hellickson winning equates to robbery given his stats.

Member
MB923
3 years 7 months ago

Trumbo was not even the best rookie hitter.

Member
nyr4life
3 years 7 months ago

Nova got robbed, at least it wasn’t trumbo

Guest
3 years 7 months ago

.291 OBP killed him

Guest
3 years 7 months ago

.291 OBP killed him

Member
BrocNessMonster
3 years 7 months ago

Trumbo was not robbed. .294 OBP? That’s terrible!

Member
Lastings
3 years 7 months ago

Didn’t see this coming…

Member
Ichiroll
3 years 7 months ago

How the hell, did Hellickson beat out Pineda…?

Member
Ichiroll
3 years 7 months ago

And I’m not implying that Pineda should have got it, I just disagree with Hellickson being the overall pick I guess.

Member
diesel2410
3 years 7 months ago

How bout you check the stats. Please do some research

Member
myname_989
3 years 7 months ago

Jeremy Hellickson – 5.57 K/9, 3.43 BB/9, .223 BABIP, 4.44 FIP, 4.72 xFIP, 4.78 SIERA, 4.49 tERA

Michael Pineda – 9.11 K/9, 2.89 BB/9, .258 BABIP, 3.42 FIP, 3.53 x FIP, 3.36 SIERA, 3.42 tERA

Just sayin’.

Member
FrankTheFunkasaurusRex
3 years 7 months ago

Apparently the only stats you checked were their ERAs and W-L records.

Member
Mariners4Ever
3 years 7 months ago

Maybe it has to do with Hellickson having that Greg Maddux potential!…. or not what do i know!

Member
Shu13
3 years 7 months ago

East Coast Bias?

Member
Ferrariman
3 years 7 months ago

anyways, the two people who deserved it got it.  Voters got this one right.

Member
Pete
3 years 7 months ago

Except Ogando & his 3.65 FIP & 3.94 xFIP and Pineda & his 3.42 FIP and 3.53 xFIP were much much better than Hellickson and his 4.44 FIP and 4.72 xFIP.

Member
NickinIthaca
3 years 7 months ago

Except Ogando appeared in 44 games in 2010 which means that he’s not a rookie.  

Member
Pete
3 years 7 months ago

Except Oganda threw 41 innings in 2010 which is less than the minimum 45 innings it takes to qualify as a rookie.

Is it really that hard to google something to check your facts before making a snide comment? And who the hell “liked” it? You both are wrong.

Member
ARodinyourPujols
3 years 7 months ago

Is it really that hard to google something? There is another requirement; “Can’t spend more than 45 days on the ML roster before Sept.1 the previous year.” Therefore Ogando was ineligible.

Guest
3 years 7 months ago

Pete you might want to check your facts. If you’re on the roster more than 45 days prior to roster expansion in the previous year (which Ogando was), then you’re not a rookie.

Member
Shu13
3 years 7 months ago

50 innings pitched is one of the cutoffs another is 45 days on the ML roster….he spent too many days(75) on the club prior to Sept 1…

Guest
3 years 7 months ago

And idk how much stock voters put into FIP(which is always going to be higher for guys who arent swing and miss guys.

Member
Karkat
3 years 7 months ago

FIP is NOT a measure of comparing success in a given season. It’s a measure for comparing future potential success. Having a better FIP means that you might go on to have a better career, but having a better ERA means you were the one who DID do better THIS season.

Member
raffish
3 years 7 months ago

False!  ERA is fielding dependent.  FIP isn’t perfect, but it beats the pants off of ERA when discussing pitching superiority.

Member
Karkat
3 years 7 months ago

If these awards are about *results* (they are), then ERA is hands-down the better measure. Pineda had more finesse, sure. But Hellickson got the better results. In the end, that’s what matters.

Member
FrankTheFunkasaurusRex
3 years 7 months ago

Hellickson & the Rays defense. It’s not Pineda’s fault that the Mariners’ defense is a lot worse than the Rays’

Member
notsureifsrs
3 years 7 months ago

put another way, hellickson-and-not-his-defense is responsible for his FIP/SIERA. hellickson and his defense are responsible for his ERA

if a person chooses to speak of this award in terms of “overall results” (pitcher+defense), that’s fine with me. hellickson’s got the best overall results. but most of the time people are using the language of individual performance (pitcher-and-not-his-defense) while using a stat (ERA) that reflects more than that

Member
FrankTheFunkasaurusRex
3 years 7 months ago

yeah, that’s what I have problems with. If they’re going to award Hellickson, they might as well just rename the award “best rookie pitcher and his defense”, because that’s what they’re choosing to go with, instead of the best individual rookie pitching performance

Member
Karkat
3 years 7 months ago

I’ve never been a huge fan of FIP (I’m warming up a little to SIERA, but I’m wary), largely because I feel like it drastically overcompensates.  The name implies that it should just be removing the influence of the defense, but it tries to approximate that by looking at a small number of stats instead of looking at the defense in question.

In general, any formula that completely throws out a whole bunch of data and heavily weights only a few makes me very uneasy.  FIP loses a lot of information, and while that may be fine for use in a predictive sense, I’m not fond of using a small number of stats to evaluate a much more complex performance.

Member
notsureifsrs
3 years 7 months ago

you have the facts right, i just think you’re projecting too much onto the stat. even though fangraphs uses FIP as the primary source of WAR (an estimation of total value), FIP itself doesn’t portend to tell a complete story of a pitcher’s performance

in other words, try not to think of it as omitting data, but as presenting a specific category of data (defense-independent). it’s up the the interpreters to make the case that that is the only data one needs to consider when evaluating a pitcher. i don’t take that position and you don’t either – and neither does FIP (its creators)

i prefer FIP to ERA only because ERA is so cluttered and it’s difficult to tell who is responsible for what. that doesn’t mean FIP is the end of the conversation, it just means that, without any other data, i’ll have more confidence in a pitcher if he has a 3.00 FIP and a 4.00 ERA than i would if he had a 3.00 ERA and a 4.00 FIP

but that without any other data clause is important. there almost always is other data available and we should always use it when he can. batted ball data (used in SIERA and tERA) is one of the best things we have to supplement e.g. BABIP to get a clearer picture of what happened on the field

this approach takes longer than glancing at ERA, but it yields a much greater degree of confidence about the performance

Member
Karkat
3 years 7 months ago

I agree with you.  The only point I was trying to make (and executed poorly, which is the hazard of trying to comment in class, I guess) was that “No, Pineda was clearly the better pitcher because of his superior FIP” is not a very good argument because FIP is far from being a “complete” metric.

Member
notsureifsrs
3 years 7 months ago

highfive

Member
raffish
3 years 7 months ago

ERA = results?  Pineda has more finesse?  You have no idea what you are talking about.

Member
Karkat
3 years 7 months ago

Forgive me for not elucidating as much as I would’ve liked to, but I was writing those comments in class, so… 😛

My general argument was that a predictive metric like FIP (let’s remember that the motivation behind FIP is that it’s a better predictor than ERA) does not necessarily show how well a pitcher actually did.  FIP refers to how a pitcher might do if his opponents and defenses were average, and while this obviously has some relevance in predictions, it’s a little naive to apply this in an a posteriori evaluation (i.e. “what is likely to happen” vs “what did happen.”)  Even SIERA (which attempts to account for a lot of things that FIP lacks) is not perfect, after all.

What do I mean? I mean that yes, Pineda’s FIP and SIERA numbers are better, but why? All FIP tells you, strictly speaking, is that Pineda had superior walk/strikeout/home run numbers.  Is it possible that if Hellickson had to play with the Seattle defense backing him that his ERA would inflate the whole 0.80? Maybe, or maybe not. Where did Hellickson’s fly outs and ground out go? To what degree did the fielders’ defense actually play a role in either case? With enough time, we could probably figure this out, but advanced pitching metrics.  We also don’t account for the fact that Hellickson faced the Red Sox and the Yankees a total of eight times and in general did much better against .500+ teams than Pineda, who struggled against winning teams but got to play the A’s multiple times.

The real conclusion is that while ERA is not perfect for this sort of thing, neither is FIP. People are pushing FIP way too hard to be used for something it wasn’t built for.

Guest
3 years 7 months ago

I wish I had 2 likes for this comment.

Member
RedCaps
3 years 7 months ago

FIP does tell you what happen, it just takes out all the things a pitcher can’t control. ERA isn’t a very good at telling how well a pitcher pitched.

Member
Karkat
3 years 7 months ago

ERA does tell you what happened, though. In my mind (and maybe this is just a difference in ideology) these awards are about what happened in the end.

Member
S8P7W
3 years 7 months ago

xFIP is a predictive stat (the one you are thinking of).

Fielding Independent Pitching (FIP) measures what a player’s ERA should have looked like over a give time period, assuming that performance on balls in play and timing were league average.

Guest
3 years 7 months ago

Thank you! FIP fanboys, please shut up now.

Member
FrankTheFunkasaurusRex
3 years 7 months ago

That is just completely wrong. ERA shows what the pitcher AND THE DEFENSE did. FIP shows only what the pitcher accomplished (almost, anyways).

Member
MB923
3 years 7 months ago

Cant blame the defense for those doubles down the line and in the gap. Something FIP doesnt tell you

Member
FrankTheFunkasaurusRex
3 years 7 months ago

yes you can. A good defense will make plays on those (or at least MORE of those). A bad defense won’t. How hard is that to understand?

Member
MB923
3 years 7 months ago

So a pitcher has no responsibility for hits allowed except Home runs? I see.

Member
MB923
3 years 7 months ago

So a pitcher has no responsibility for hits allowed except Home runs? I see.

Member
MB923
3 years 7 months ago

I’ve done this before and I’ll do it again, provide me the pitcher with the better season

Pitcher A- 200 innings, 150 hits allowed, 70 runs allowed, 150 K’s, 45 BB’s, 8 HR allowed

Pitcher B- 200 innings, 230 hits allowed, 140 runs allowed, 160 K’s, 44 BB’s, 7 HR allowed

Congrats on taking the pitcher with a 6.30 ERA and a 1.37 WHIP over a pitcher with a 3.15 ERA and 0.97 WHIP

Member
FrankTheFunkasaurusRex
3 years 7 months ago

Yes, I would take the second pitcher. His BABIP is off the charts, and 100% guaranteed to drop.

Also, picking ridiculous and unrealistic extremes as evidence does not help your argument.

Member
MB923
3 years 7 months ago

To re-word what I last said, props to taking the pitcher who allows more base runners and allows more runs to score.

Sorry I’ll take the 7 innings, 2 runs (1 HR allowed), 5 hits, 2 BB’s and 2 K’s anytime over the 7 innings, 5 runs (0 HR allowed), 9 hits, 0 BB’s, 6 K’s

I hate to break it to you, but there is more to a pitcher than K’s and BB’s.

Member
MB923
3 years 7 months ago

What is ridiculous about it? Are you saying those kind of numbers or numbers similar to that are impossible? 

Member
Shu13
3 years 7 months ago

Too bad Ogando wasn’t eligible…..Fangraphs made a mistake by inc’ing him to the “Rookies” list…..

Member
Pete
3 years 7 months ago

He threw 41 innings, 45 is the minimum requirement.

Did Ogando lose because all the voters just forgot this? lol

Member
commenter3346
3 years 7 months ago

He wasn’t eligible since he’s not a rookie anymore.

Member
monkeydung
3 years 7 months ago

glad to see Jansen is getting some recognition. His stuff is just filthy. Excited to have a full season of Jansen/Guerra anchoring the setup/closer roles.

Member
NYBravosFan10
3 years 7 months ago

Obviously you’d know more than me being a Dodger fan but isn’t Jansen a better candidate for closer? I’ve heard nice things about Guerra but Jansen is an animal.