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.
Trumbo got robbed. At least it wasnt Nova.
I one up yours with Pineda! Not taking anything away with what Trumbo did however.
I agree, Pineda was the best rookie in the AL this year.
Hellickson ERA: 2.95
Pineda ERA: 3.74
No.
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.
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
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.
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…
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?
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…
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.
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.
“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.
If you don’t allow runs, no, it DOES NOT matter if you get Ks or not.
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 .
“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.
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.
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…
“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.
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.
Pineda WAR: 2.8
Nova WAR: 3.6
Hellickson WAR: 4.2
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.
Interesting. Didnt know they used different types of WAR. Thanks
Trumbo’s sub-.300 OBP says otherwise.
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.
Trumbo was not even the best rookie hitter.
Nova got robbed, at least it wasn’t trumbo
.291 OBP killed him
.291 OBP killed him
Trumbo was not robbed. .294 OBP? That’s terrible!
Didn’t see this coming…
How the hell, did Hellickson beat out Pineda…?
And I’m not implying that Pineda should have got it, I just disagree with Hellickson being the overall pick I guess.
How bout you check the stats. Please do some research
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’.
Apparently the only stats you checked were their ERAs and W-L records.
Maybe it has to do with Hellickson having that Greg Maddux potential!…. or not what do i know!
East Coast Bias?
anyways, the two people who deserved it got it. Voters got this one right.
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.
Except Ogando appeared in 44 games in 2010 which means that he’s not a rookie.
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.
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.
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.
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…
And idk how much stock voters put into FIP(which is always going to be higher for guys who arent swing and miss guys.
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.
False! ERA is fielding dependent. FIP isn’t perfect, but it beats the pants off of ERA when discussing pitching superiority.
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.
Hellickson & the Rays defense. It’s not Pineda’s fault that the Mariners’ defense is a lot worse than the Rays’
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
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
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.
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
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.
highfive
ERA = results? Pineda has more finesse? You have no idea what you are talking about.
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.
I wish I had 2 likes for this comment.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you! FIP fanboys, please shut up now.
That is just completely wrong. ERA shows what the pitcher AND THE DEFENSE did. FIP shows only what the pitcher accomplished (almost, anyways).
Cant blame the defense for those doubles down the line and in the gap. Something FIP doesnt tell you
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?
So a pitcher has no responsibility for hits allowed except Home runs? I see.
So a pitcher has no responsibility for hits allowed except Home runs? I see.
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
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.
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.
What is ridiculous about it? Are you saying those kind of numbers or numbers similar to that are impossible?
Too bad Ogando wasn’t eligible…..Fangraphs made a mistake by inc’ing him to the “Rookies” list…..
He threw 41 innings, 45 is the minimum requirement.
Did Ogando lose because all the voters just forgot this? lol
He wasn’t eligible since he’s not a rookie anymore.
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.
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.
Trumbo gets to join the list of Angel rookies who got screwed over for ROY:
Bryan Harvey,
Garret Anderson, and
Wally Joyner
Trumbo is not very good.
Really?
He’s pretty bad at everything except hitting HR. His OBP isn’t going to fly long term. LAAA is lucky they have Morales.
OBP is horrible, his wOBA isn’t impressive, and his wRC+ is just about league average. For a 1B that is not good. He was pretty good with the glove, however.
Verlander is just okay.
And John Lackey is the best pitcher in baseball, trying to become the youngest to be inducted into the HOF
I know it hurts to hear it for the first time, and I’m sorry I’m the one who had to break it to you. But he just isn’t that good.
Tiger fans are always 100% correct, are humble, and never have cheesy mustaches.
I will take your replies as conceding defeat since you have not backed up your argument with any statistical analysis whatsoever.
why does the wOBA give more credit for getting on base via error then from a hit?
because ROE has a higher value as a linear weight than a hit.
if only there were some kind of mechanism by which one could search for such answers. a “search engine”, if you will
link to insidethebook.com
Objectively, he is not bad. He finished second as ROY. You can argue he is mediocre, but not bad.
Also take into account Trumbo:
1. He hits in a pitcher’s park,
2. Had Jeff Mathis batting behind him most of the season, and
3. Played the last few weeks on a broken foot.
None of which are things that should account for him having an OBP south of .300.
1. there’s an app for that
2. if anything, having a terrible hitter behind you will tend to increase your walk-rate
3. “why the hell did you swing at that pitch, mark?” “my foot hurts, coach”
I never said he was “bad”. Just that he is not very good and should not have won ROY as the original poster argued.
Trumbo had a 2.1 WAR. By definition, that means he was above average. Hellickson had a 1.4 WAR. Yes, Trumbo had a terrible OBP and he swings at everything. But, he also led his team and HR’s and RBI’s. The last time this happened was 2003 (Jody Gerut). He almost singlehandedly carried the team offensively throughout the year. His 29 home runs were the most by an AL rookie since Nomar Garciaparra hit 30 for the Red Sox in 1997. Trumbo was more valuable to the Angels than Hellickson was to the Rays.
sure, but the bulk of that WAR came from his defense at first base. his bat was just a hair above average (105 wRC+) and a league average bat at first base isn’t very valuable
Depends on which WAR you’re using. BR has Hellickson at 4.2 and Trumbo at 1.8. That seems more likely than fangraphs in this case. If you could find one GM in baseball who would trade Hellickson straight up for Trumbo, you’d be looking at a soon-to-be-unemployed GM.
“Trumbo was more valuable to the Angels than Hellickson was to the Rays”
Hellickson’s value helped the Rays into the post-season in a division that requires its participants to be better than 4 teams each year instead of the West, where one only has to be better than 3 teams each year (nice advantage, btw), whereas Trumbo kept the Angels out of 3rd place.
A Trumbo for Hellickson trade is not completely off base. Granted, high ceiling pitching like Hellickson is always coveted over a player like Trumbo (who was not as highly touted as Hellickson). But, there can be an argument made that both teams would benefit. The Rays have a ton of young arms and could use some pop at 1B. The Angels need arms and could take a chance that Morales is going to come back.
“A Trumbo for Hellickson trade is not completely off base”
Yes it is.
I said “not completely off base”, the needs are mutual. Wade Davis would be more in line.
Hellickson would net you much more than Trumbo.
THANK you.
Ogando & Pineda got robbed. Trumbo is bad at baseball, he’s basically Mike Jacobs Jr. Kimbrel was pretty deserving though at least, they got one right.
Voters still care about ERA more than FIP & xFIP huh? What a shame…
Ogando wasn’t eligible. Try again
that’s because sabermetrics aren’t accepted by a whole lot of people and I don’t blame them because all of them are either theoretical “should be” stats or require complicated calculations that most people are too lazy to do. I myself am a fan of the good, old-fashioned, been-working-for-years stats such as ERA, k/9, batting average and fielding percentage but I have to admit that WAR is starting to grown on me
Those stats don’t work though, and never did thats why the new ones were created. Explain the logic in telling me how good a pitcher is because of his 8 defenders around him? Having 8 other people help you out doesn’t mean anything about a single players true talent. That doesn’t even count having good relievers come in and strand the runners that pitcher left runners on.
I personally haven’t researched what all of the sabermetrics mean so I can’t exactly argue but I do know that the “old-fashioned” stats have worked for a long time and I’m good with that.
They didn’t get robbed. This is an award won by getting the most votes–not a milestone that’s achieved. There’s nothing undeserving about him getting it over the others. The only thing they deserved is a chance at it, and that’s what they got. All of them were worthy of their votes, but in the end it’s a matter of the number of votes they get based on subjective evaluation of both subjective and objective measures. This wasn’t like he was some bum who didn’t do anything all year.
Wow, I didn’t realize how bad Hellickson’s peripheral stats were in comparison to his surface ones
Some pitchers can still dominate without a high k/9, etc… Look at Greg Maddux
Greg Maddux’s peripherals were actually amazing, so your point is moot.
Look at Maddux’s BB/9 and rethink your argument.
Kimbrel was a given but the AL was unbelievably close. I’d say the top 5 in the AL all made a case for 1st or a darn good 2nd
I knew Kimbrel was going to win it, but I really enjoyed watching Freddie Freeman. I’m glad they got 1-2.
Had Hosmer been called up a month earlier this wouldn’t have been close
Agreed. Plus, Hosmer has much much much more potential than Trumbo. The ROY is over now and it’s time to look at what he could be in the future. If there was a Future Star award, I’d give it Hosmer.
In four years Hosmer (and Freeman) will be the same age as Trumbo is now. In four years, Trumbo will be a non-tender candidate.
I’m not claiming he’ll be a better overall player then Hosmer/Freeman but he won’t be a non tender candidate in 4 yrs…
Trumbo is going to have to learn to get more hits and improve his k/bb ratio. Even guys like Uggla and Fielder have been getting more hits the past few years. If Trumbo keeps this up he’s going to be the next Carlos Pena
I’m not claiming he’ll be a better overall player then Hosmer/Freeman but he won’t be a non tender candidate in 4 yrs…
I think both choices were appropriate and deserved. The Yanks will get it next year when Montero destroys AL pitching :)!!!
Except against next years AL ROY Matt Moore…
There are going to a handful of very talented prospects next year and I agree, Moore and Montero are going to be the position player/pitcher to beat. I still can’t get over Moores outing where he struck out like 90% of Yanks in 4 innings. That’s just retarded.
Depends on what the Rays do with him. They could still keep him down until mid-season. I think they will.
Does not matter if hellickson can sustain his perphs stats or not. All that matter is what he did his rookie year.
Congrats to Kimbrel. Now if I can just forget your game 162 performance. So close.
Congrats to Hellickson and Kimbrel, you guys both deserved it. Must have been a close vote between Hellickson and Trumbo because Trumbo is an absolute beast.
His .291 OBP wasn’t exactly beast like.
So much for Greg Zauns perdiction: JP Arencibia
LOL
Did Ogando lose because he threw 41 innings and ROY voting states rookies are those who threw 45+ and the voters just didn’t know???
No
Let me try to spell it out again for you….2010 Ogando was on the ML roster for 75 days prior to Sept 1 so that made him ineligible for ROY considerations in 2011…Even though he didn’t exceed the amount of innings pitched in 2010 he still exceeded the service time…
Had no idea, thought it was 45 IP/75 AB. Ok then, fangraphs has it wrong too, so I’m in good company.
Guess you shouldn’t have called that person a dummy….huh
which incidentally is the reason Michael Morse wasn’t a candidate
It’s a shame that the voters have been able to embrace advanced statistical analysis when determining the Cy Young and MVP voting, but they throw out the advanced methods for Rookie of the Year.
I have no problem with Kimbrel, but Hellickson, really?
Sure, you have your nice and shiny 2.95 ERA, but your FIP and xFIP suggest that you were lucky, and should have had an ERA between 4.40 and 4.80; somewhere up in there is where your season should have been, and very well could be next year. Why? Because a 5 k/9 coupled with a 3 bb/9 is about as unimpressive as it gets. Oh, nah, your 1.4 WAR over the course of a full season is the unimpressive part.
And to those who rule out Pineda over ERA? I scoff. His 3.74 ERA was higher than his 3.42 FIP, and 3.53 xFIP. Coupled with his 9.11 k/9, and bb/9 rate of 2.89, he’s clearly the superior pitcher, and his 3.4 WAR reflects that.
Note: I’m not advocating Pineda for RotY. There’s plenty of argument for some other players, but Pineda was, at very least, far more deserving of the votes than Hellickson.
I am consoled by the fact that Michael Pineda is a Mariner.
Yeah because last year’s Cy Young Award winner was on the Yankees and Ichiro was on the Red Sox in 2001 when he won ROTY.
This is great. Hellickson winning ROY = more money required in arbitration = Rays having to overpay or trade him. Anything to hinder the Rays.
You must be a Sox fan. HOW BOUT THAT COLLAPSE!
I’m actually not. I enjoyed game 162 though.
Would have been nice if Lawrie won it though. He was easily the best rookie if we’re disregarding playing time.
I agreee that had he played more then 45 games (or whatever it was) would have put up ROY numbers BUT he didn’t and IMO service time(games played) does weigh into it…
How did he not put up ROY numbers? .293/.373/.580 not good enough for ya?
He has to sustain that over a year and there’s no guarantee he would do that.
Those would have been more then enough had he played more then 1/4 of the season….I refuse to give it to a player who doesn’t play more then 2/3 of a season….
understandable, but I think that slash line deserves at least a vote or two. I find it strange he got no votes.
he got NO votes b/c he didn’t play even close to enough….and what is the point of getting a vote or 2?
and no other player played as close to good as he did. Playing time trumps performance? I don’t think so.
and no other player played as close to good as he did. Playing time trumps performance? I don’t think so.
he got NO votes b/c he didn’t play even close to enough….and what is the point of getting a vote or 2?
You can’t disregard playing time though. If he played a full year or most of the year, his stats could be vastly different. Look at Espinosa’s splits.
I like how the Pete dude said over and over again how Ogando was eligible yet 6 people told him why he was not eligible. People are so ignorant
had Danny continued his first-half hot hitting in the next half? It easily would have been him. The guy was on track to hit 30 HR and drive 100 RBIs. I am disappointed he did not do it, but his eventual numbers are not so bad, including his awesome defense.
Anyways, congrats to Kimbrel and Hellickson. Deserved it!
Krimbel pitched great but I really hate when closers win ROY awards because every year it seems at least one wins despite the fact they contribute less than starters and much less than everyday players. I think the award should have went to two first basemen in Eric Hosmer (.293/.334/.465 19 HRs 78 Rbis, 66 Runs and 11 Sb) and Freddie Freeman (.282/.346/.448 21 Hrs 76 RBi 67 runs)
Closing has always been appreciated in the bigs. Didn’t Eric Gagne win MVP like 8 years ago?
This is the way I look at it when arguing my case for Kimbrel. Freeman was a damn good 1B FOR A ROOKIE. Kimbrel was a damn good closer PERIOD.
If Freeman were the best 1B in the NL or if Worley, for example, were the best SP in the NL, then they would deserve the award. But they weren’t. And Kimbrel was at his position.
more anti ny bull crap
if hellickson pitched for yanks and nova pitched for tampa, nova would have won….just more anti yankee bull crap
I would have picked Hosmer personally but Hellickson was definitely the more consistent pitcher over Pineda. Not the better pitcher, but he actually improved throughout the season as opposed to Pineda(who I personally prefer) who seemed not only worn out as the season progressed but looked like hitters were catching on to his stuff. Who has the better chance to be an ace? Pineda. Who had the better season? Hellickson. Playing for a contender definitely didn’t hurt his case either.
Kimbrel totally deserved it, historic K stats.
Seriously? Dude you can google just as easily as I can. You’re missing the point. To just knee-jerk reflexively say “a low BABIP cannot be maintained” is thoughtless.
a .223 BABIP is not low, it is a statistical anomaly. The lowest BABIP over the last 6 yearst (min. 800 IP) is Matt Cain with .265. And yes, a .042 difference is huge.
Meant as reply to Frankasauras
You’re gonna feel pretty stupid when you figure it out
I’ve never understood the argument that a low BABIP is hard to maintain. Some pitchers are better than others at inducing non-solid contact. The concept of “regression to the mean” is taken too far by some.
Or YOU could be on drugs. Ever think of that?
Meaningful numbers…
Pineda: 9.11 k/9; 2.89 BB/9; .258 babip; 69.7 lob%; 3.42 FIP; 3.53 xFIP; 3.4 WAR
Hellboy: 5.57 k/9; 3.43 BB/9; .223 babip; 82.0 lob%; 4.44 FIP; 4.72 xFIP; 1.4 WAR
Pineda basically beat Hellickson in everything a pitcher can control. He more than doubled Hellickson’s WAR. If Pineda pitched for the Rays he would have won four additional games and we wouldn’t be having this debate. He didn’t win a single game all year in which he gave up 3 or more runs!
Hellickson got lucky in his babip and strand rate. The defense behind him was superior to Pineda’s defense. I’m not saying Hellboy didn’t have a good year.
But Pineda was the superior pitcher and there’s no doubt about it.
show me one starting pitcher that has maintained a .223 BABIP
hellickson is a much better pitcher imo and did have a better year overall. having said that, pineda’s individual results were better. giving up plenty of line-drives and fly-balls, hellickson did not earn his .223 BABIP against this year and that certainly contributed to his high strand-rate and low ERA. his defense helped him a lot and so did some luck
that’s not his fault; he’s still an outstanding talent and his overall results were still the best. but refusing to acknowledge these peripheral measures of individual performance while talking specifically about the performance of individuals seems silly
Good points on the tougher competition, especially in the East. If you actually read my post, I said I would have given the award to Hellickson because of that. However, Tropicana Field surpresses more runs than does Safco, so that arguement doesn’t really hold water.
I really don’t see how anyone make the arguement for Pineda. He had a great first half of 2011 and if he kept it up, he would have won the award. But his second half was not good at all where Hellickson was consistent all year long. And had the Rays provided him with any offense at all, his record would have been much more impressive than 13-10. 8 or 9 of his losses were ones where the Rays scored only 1 run or less. Hell, he was shut out 4 or 5 times. Considering he can’t control his offense he is a no brainer. Any other team’s offense and he would have won 20 games for sure.
I didn’t say .223, I said low. I can show you plenty of pitchers that have maintained a low BABIP. It’s just odd to me that people seem to almost reflexively assume that a low BABIP can’t be maintained. If a pitcher is consistently good at inducing weak contact and using the defense behind him, there’s statistically no logical reason to assume that pitcher can’t maintain that level.
This argument I can agree with.
Are we going to cut and paste this post again?
Pineda had a bad start vs. LAA, a bad start vs. DET, and a bad start vs. BOS. He pitched rather well in 3 starts vs. TEX– whip of 1.05, and his NYY start wasn’t bad– he surrendered 3 runs in 5 IP on 3 hits.
Are you really using this argument to paint a picture that Pineda is a bottom-feeder? Is this a good enough sample size to suggest he cannot beat good teams? He’s 22 years old– two years younger than Hellickson– and had all of 62 innings above AA before his MLB debut in 2011. Hellickson had 175 AAA innings, plus another 36 in MLB in 2010.
Hellickson was far from impressive vs. BOS, striking out 9 in 24 IP, and only once pitching beyond the sixth inning. He walks too many batters.
Versus the NYY he had two good starts and two bad ones.
In his one start vs. TEX he allowed 10 base runners in 6 IP and got off easy.
Hellickson had a fortunate season.
Exactly
You are using ERA to base your entire argument, and buttressing it with AL East vs. West argument. We’ve moved beyond this, Joseph Jones. Try to catch up with the class.
You are using ERA to base your entire argument, and buttressing it with AL East vs. West argument. We’ve moved beyond this, Joseph Jones. Try to catch up with the class.
Don’t forget that Pineda never gets to pitch against the Mariners, the team that makes the AL West look so bad.
Don’t forget that Pineda never gets to pitch against the Mariners, the team that makes the AL West look so bad.
well, show me the numbers.
And you’re using FIP as your entire argument. I posted this above to someone else but I’ll post it to you now:
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
let’s add data you omitted and turn the question around:
Pitcher A – BABIP .150 (50% line-drive rate)
Pitcher B – BABIP .450 (10% line-drive rate)
does this change your analysis? if it doesn’t, you’re straight up nuts. if it does, you understand the point the others are making
FIP omits information, but ERA is a very sloppy remedy (if it counts as one at all). SIERA & tERA hold the pitcher responsible for the quality of contact he surrenders, but not for the performance of his defense. that is the middle ground
whatever you think of FIP, using ERA instead of FIP is just choosing a different set of larger, more complicated problems
“let’s add data you omitted and turn the question around:
Pitcher A – BABIP .150 (10% line-drive rate)
Pitcher B – BABIP .450 (50% line-drive rate)
does this change your analysis? if it doesn’t, you’re straight up nuts.”
Thanks for helping me out more and showing me that Pitcher B was easy to hit off of, which was the entire point I was making.
Consideriing the chances of those stat lines (.450 BABIP/10% LD and .150 BABIP/50% LD) are next to impossible, I can’t really answer that lol
Also please remind me if there is a big discrepancy in FIP and xFIP
xFIP
Hellickson – 4.72
Lackey- 4.70
Burnett- 3.86
sure you can. but now that i know your first comment was because the LD-rates were switched, i’m back to being confident you know what you’re talking about and you get the point. so glad i don’t have to hate your face
if those performances existed, we’d both understand that B had a much better performance despite having given up all the extra hits and runs. we have to filter hit & run data with BABIP & batted ball profile. neither ERA nor FIP tells us everything we need to know, but at least FIP is less messy. that’s why i prefer it
xFIP just replaces a player’s HR/FB rate with the league average rate
Then in other words, Burnett did not have that bad a year, and Lackey was better than (or I suppose let’s say equal to) Hellickson?
sorta. it suggests that burnett really sucked at keeping the ball in the park (and that if he hadn’t, he’d have been alright)
the lackey and hellickson thing isn’t surprising. lackey actually struck out more and walked less. but his BABIP was more than 100 points higher and his strand-rate was about 20% lower
is that attributable to skill? not a lot of it, i’d say. lackey actually got more groundballs (by about 5%) and only a 2% difference in line drives
but it’s also not all luck and defense. for example, hellickson had a crazy 16% infield fly ball rate, which means he had many more batters off-balance than lackey did
he should get credit for that, and FIP doesn’t give it to him. but he shouldn’t get full credit for his BABIP & strand-rate either, which is what ERA gives him
Whoa, I guess the misunderstandings of the name calling before got all those comments removed.
earmuffs!