Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 17248 Location: In a no-ship
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 8:11 am Post subject:
ribeye wrote:
My argument against Harper for MVP--Hank Aaron award, yes by a landslide, MVP no.
In 2014 the Nats won 96 games. In 2015, the won 83 or they had 13 less wins. More important, they were 7 games out. Now, of course, this can't be blamed on Harper, but if we assume WAR is somewhat accurate, he had a WAR of 9.9, or say, 10 wins. If you subtract 10 wins from the Nats, they finish in exactly the same place in the standings as they did finish, or second. He helped a second place team finish second.
Also, take away Greinke's 9.3 WAR, say 9 wins, and the Dodgers come in second and don't make the playoffs. Take away Arieta's 8.6 WAR, say 9 wins, and they still make the playoffs as the WC second seed.
A-Rod won MVP on a last-place team. Harper had a historically amazing year at the plate. His wRC+ for most of the year was over 200 (and finished at 197). He's gotta be MVP.
Joined: 10 Jul 2009 Posts: 12161 Location: Bay Area
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 8:13 am Post subject:
SGV-Laker fan wrote:
typical Don Mattingly move on the starting rotation. just play safe, go by the book, without any imagination. what if we lose 1 of the first 2 games (or both games, god forbid) with Kershaw and Greinke pitching, then what? hope to have Brett Anderson save our season on the road? if it was me, i'd go with:
game 1: Grienke (or Kershaw)
game 2: Alex Wood (he's been good at home, more importantly, we know we will have either Grienke or Kershaw available in game 3, kind of like play with house money)
Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 17248 Location: In a no-ship
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 8:14 am Post subject:
Cutheon wrote:
ribeye wrote:
I think picking Kershaw for the opener can be construed as slighting Greinke. Both pitchers should pitch the same number of games so I don't see a strategic value to the decision. When Greinke is almost certainly going to become a free agent, the Dodgers are proving to him that he is the #2 guy and not a co-#1 as he proved to be this year. It's a little thing but little things add up.
I just took it as giving him an extra day to rest. He's older than Kershaw and has the mileage to show it.
Kershaw is also much more about routine than Greinke, according to Ellis. I think it would affect Kershaw more to pitch outside his normal rest.
My argument against Harper for MVP--Hank Aaron award, yes by a landslide, MVP no.
In 2014 the Nats won 96 games. In 2015, the won 83 or they had 13 less wins. More important, they were 7 games out. Now, of course, this can't be blamed on Harper, but if we assume WAR is somewhat accurate, he had a WAR of 9.9, or say, 10 wins. If you subtract 10 wins from the Nats, they finish in exactly the same place in the standings as they did finish, or second. He helped a second place team finish second.
Also, take away Greinke's 9.3 WAR, say 9 wins, and the Dodgers come in second and don't make the playoffs. Take away Arieta's 8.6 WAR, say 9 wins, and they still make the playoffs as the WC second seed.
A-Rod won MVP on a last-place team. Harper had a historically amazing year at the plate. His wRC+ for most of the year was over 200 (and finished at 197). He's gotta be MVP.
Folks will never agree just what does most valuable mean, and will debate this years from now, but to me, I take it literally. I don't consider the award to be the most historically amazing. There are the Hank Aaron and Cy Young awards for best hitter and best pitcher. Also I don't believe ARod deserved the 2003 award, as I believe you reference. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
typical Don Mattingly move on the starting rotation. just play safe, go by the book, without any imagination. what if we lose 1 of the first 2 games (or both games, god forbid) with Kershaw and Greinke pitching, then what? hope to have Brett Anderson save our season on the road? if it was me, i'd go with:
game 1: Grienke (or Kershaw)
game 2: Alex Wood (he's been good at home, more importantly, we know we will have either Grienke or Kershaw available in game 3, kind of like play with house money)
game 3 Kershaw (or Grienke)
agreed one hundred percent.
Then when this strategy doesn't work guess who gets the blame... typical Mattingly. _________________ #11/08/16 America became GREAT again
#Avatar-gate
typical Don Mattingly move on the starting rotation. just play safe, go by the book, without any imagination. what if we lose 1 of the first 2 games (or both games, god forbid) with Kershaw and Greinke pitching, then what? hope to have Brett Anderson save our season on the road? if it was me, i'd go with:
game 1: Grienke (or Kershaw)
game 2: Alex Wood (he's been good at home, more importantly, we know we will have either Grienke or Kershaw available in game 3, kind of like play with house money)
game 3 Kershaw (or Grienke)
agreed one hundred percent.
Then when this strategy doesn't work guess who gets the blame... typical Mattingly.
well, we don't have hindsight unfortunately, so we gotta have to play the percentage and hedging. with the rotation top heavy, last thing you want to do is used up all your weapons while at home. now if the Dodgers start the series in NY, then i have no problem starting our 2 best pitchers because we still have game 3 at home to fall back on
Last edited by SGV-Laker fan on Wed Oct 07, 2015 9:38 am; edited 1 time in total
Dunno why you would put the blame on Mattingly....most MLB managers would start their 2 best pitchers in the 1st 2 games, no matter where the game was being played. The only reason why you would put your top of the order rotation pitchers starting in the 3rd game is if they are injured/tired or if you don't have confidence in their abilities.
Dunno why you would put the blame on Mattingly....most MLB managers would start their 2 best pitchers in the 1st 2 games, no matter where the game was being played. The only reason why you would put your top of the order rotation pitchers starting in the 3rd game is if they are injured/tired or if you don't have confidence in their abilities.
similar to NFL teams' coin toss, almost 99% of the teams win the toss will defer, if following your logic, why wouldn't they want to score first? well, because they are hedging, to have a possession start the 2nd half in case 1st half doesn't go their way.
Joined: 10 Jul 2009 Posts: 12161 Location: Bay Area
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 10:25 am Post subject:
lakersken80 wrote:
Dunno why you would put the blame on Mattingly....most MLB managers would start their 2 best pitchers in the 1st 2 games, no matter where the game was being played. The only reason why you would put your top of the order rotation pitchers starting in the 3rd game is if they are injured/tired or if you don't have confidence in their abilities.
Fair point. And, if we did lose the first two games, I'm not entirely sure it would have mattered who we started - clearly, the teams failure would be so pervasive that to blame a single pitching decision would be unfair. Still, and I agree with SGV on this, I think the team's chances are drastically improved by letting either Kershaw or Greinke get a Game 3 start as opposed to Wood or Anderson. Both Wood/Anderson are better pitchers at home - Kershaw and Greinke, while statistically better at home, are Kershaw or Greinke wherever they pitch.
While our expected win percentage is likely lower with Wood/Anderson on the mound @ home as opposed to Greinke or Kershaw, I imagine the difference is even starker in NYC, opposing Harvey, with the Mets either looking to: sweep us, stave off elimination, or gain a critical 2-1 advantage.
I won't blame Mattingly for starting Greinke or Kershaw. 2-0, 1-1, or 0-2 - starting Kershaw and Greinke gives us the best chance to win - I just think that the best chance to win over three games is better achieved with bookending our Aces as opposed to frontloading them
The final consideration that would sway me towards starting G/K upfront is simply rest. There is something to giving pitchers extra rest, but too much rest and it might backfire. Greinke on 5 days rest sounds nice - Greinke on, what, 7/8 days rest is kind of concerning. It's a small sample size, fwiw, but I don't think - historically - pitchers fare well when they rest too much. Just completely throws off their regiment.
Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 17248 Location: In a no-ship
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 10:55 am Post subject:
ribeye wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
ribeye wrote:
My argument against Harper for MVP--Hank Aaron award, yes by a landslide, MVP no.
In 2014 the Nats won 96 games. In 2015, the won 83 or they had 13 less wins. More important, they were 7 games out. Now, of course, this can't be blamed on Harper, but if we assume WAR is somewhat accurate, he had a WAR of 9.9, or say, 10 wins. If you subtract 10 wins from the Nats, they finish in exactly the same place in the standings as they did finish, or second. He helped a second place team finish second.
Also, take away Greinke's 9.3 WAR, say 9 wins, and the Dodgers come in second and don't make the playoffs. Take away Arieta's 8.6 WAR, say 9 wins, and they still make the playoffs as the WC second seed.
A-Rod won MVP on a last-place team. Harper had a historically amazing year at the plate. His wRC+ for most of the year was over 200 (and finished at 197). He's gotta be MVP.
Folks will never agree just what does most valuable mean, and will debate this years from now, but to me, I take it literally. I don't consider the award to be the most historically amazing. There are the Hank Aaron and Cy Young awards for best hitter and best pitcher. Also I don't believe ARod deserved the 2003 award, as I believe you reference.
Also Hank Aaron isn't on the same level as MVP and CY for prestige. Pitchers only win MVP when there is a real lack of quality hitting, particularly on teams that do well. I think that's because if you weight a pitcher on the same level as a hitter, we'll have a situation like the NFL where a quarterback wins virtually every year.
Anyway, Harper this year has been on a completely different level than any other hitter. The only folks close are Votto and Goldschmidt, then there's a significant dropoff to Rizzo and Cutch. Not giving Harper the MVP this year and giving it to a guy like Rizzo/Cutch would be like saying Steve Nash deserved MVP over Kobe in 2006. Everyone knows Kobe was the best individual player that year, and Harper is the best this year.
Joined: 10 Jul 2009 Posts: 12161 Location: Bay Area
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 11:05 am Post subject:
^He is putting up numbers that have only been matched by unknowns like Ted (bleep) Williams, Babe Ruth, and Barry Bonds (unsure of the last nobody). Give him the MVP.
Also, since the Hank Aaron award is rather new, it doesn't have the prestige, yet. I think it is time to change the voting to the writers and/or players and to make a much bigger deal of it.
As I've said and have many, many others, I don't know how you can be valuable when your team comes in last or your team comes in second place when it would probably come in second place without you. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35812 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 12:41 pm Post subject:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
Cutheon wrote:
ribeye wrote:
I think picking Kershaw for the opener can be construed as slighting Greinke. Both pitchers should pitch the same number of games so I don't see a strategic value to the decision. When Greinke is almost certainly going to become a free agent, the Dodgers are proving to him that he is the #2 guy and not a co-#1 as he proved to be this year. It's a little thing but little things add up.
I just took it as giving him an extra day to rest. He's older than Kershaw and has the mileage to show it.
Kershaw is also much more about routine than Greinke, according to Ellis. I think it would affect Kershaw more to pitch outside his normal rest.
*Puts on flamesuit*
The reason I would go with Greinke in Game 1 is that he's been by far the more consistent postseason pitcher. If this goes to five games, then you want him available. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Also, since the Hank Aaron award is rather new, it doesn't have the prestige, yet. I think it is time to change the voting to the writers and/or players and to make a much bigger deal of it.
As I've said and have many, many others, I don't know how you can be valuable when your team comes in last or your team comes in second place when it would probably come in second place without you.
It's an individual award, not a team award. You can't use team performance for MVP, just like you don't for CY. Especially in baseball, where there are so many players compared to the NBA, each player has a much smaller effect. It's the same reason pitcher wins are a poor measure of a pitcher's skill.
Tell me this: In a hypothetical world in which Harper replaced one of the non-Trout Angels outfielders, thus pushing them into the playoffs, would that make him more valuable? It shouldn't. His numbers are what they are no matter the context. That's how the award has been voted traditionally.
Dunno why you would put the blame on Mattingly....most MLB managers would start their 2 best pitchers in the 1st 2 games, no matter where the game was being played. The only reason why you would put your top of the order rotation pitchers starting in the 3rd game is if they are injured/tired or if you don't have confidence in their abilities.
similar to NFL teams' coin toss, almost 99% of the teams win the toss will defer, if following your logic, why wouldn't they want to score first? well, because they are hedging, to have a possession start the 2nd half in case 1st half doesn't go their way.
I've seen plenty of NFL teams choose to receive first over the years. And in my opinion NFL coaches make a lot of horrible in game decisions anyway. But in any case, your post made me curious so I looked up some numbers. The numbers below show how often NFL coaches have deferred in recent years.
I thought the biggest reason for using Kershaw and Greinke in games 1 and 2 is so the team can bring them back for games 4 and 5. The most likely scenarios are a 2-0 lead or a split after the first two games. If it's tied 1-1 and the Mets win game 3, then you use Kershaw on 3 days rest and Greinke on full rest in game 5.
If the Mets beat Kershaw/Greinke twice (no matter how you set up the rotation, even if one of them pitches game 3) then they will probably win anyway.
The one major weakness to this however is if you go down 0-2. But how often does that scenario happen? Less than 10 percent of the time? Only way it happens way more often is if Kershaw is really a choker, but in that case the team is in major trouble no matter what it does.
Thoughts? Not 100% sure what I'd do so just throwing this out there. We know from previous history that Mattingly has set up the rotation the way I talked about before.
Also I saw a stat that in the last two years when Kershaw pitched on 3 days rest in the division series, he pitched 12 innings and has a 2.25 era in those situations.
Alrite Arrieta. You need to keep this up against the Cards.
Man this dude is dealing. 3 runs in last 70 innings. Da fuq?
Problem is if he's that hot he'll be a problem for the teams in the Cubs path. Lets just hope the Cubs don't have that 2nd pitcher that is as dominant or they can be like the 2001 D'Backs.
Alrite Arrieta. You need to keep this up against the Cards.
Man this dude is dealing. 3 runs in last 70 innings. Da fuq?
Problem is if he's that hot he'll be a problem for the teams in the Cubs path. Lets just hope the Cubs don't have that 2nd pitcher that is as dominant or they can be like the 2001 D'Backs.
True but as a fan I'd just rather the Dodgers face anyone but the Cards. As far as the 2nd pitcher, I think Lester can be that guy. He's had to deep runs where he was pretty lights out so he's definitely proven to be a big game guy.
I thought the biggest reason for using Kershaw and Greinke in games 1 and 2 is so the team can bring them back for games 4 and 5. The most likely scenarios are a 2-0 lead or a split after the first two games. If it's tied 1-1 and the Mets win game 3, then you use Kershaw on 3 days rest and Greinke on full rest in game 5.
If the Mets beat Kershaw/Greinke twice (no matter how you set up the rotation, even if one of them pitches game 3) then they will probably win anyway.
The one major weakness to this however is if you go down 0-2. But how often does that scenario happen? Less than 10 percent of the time? Only way it happens way more often is if Kershaw is really a choker, but in that case the team is in major trouble no matter what it does.
Thoughts? Not 100% sure what I'd do so just throwing this out there. We know from previous history that Mattingly has set up the rotation the way I talked about before.
This is exactly why Kershaw is pitching 1 and Greinke 2..... all these other ideas are just plain stupid since Anderson & Wood are coin flip #3 starters. It would be remotely interesting if Ryu or McCarthy were healthy. _________________ #11/08/16 America became GREAT again
#Avatar-gate
Congrats to Arrieta, he just locked up the Cy Young w/his performance against the Pirates. Sorry Zack _________________ #11/08/16 America became GREAT again
#Avatar-gate
Congrats to Arrieta, he just locked up the Cy Young w/his performance against the Pirates. Sorry Zack
The award is based on regular season. They could have voted before this game. _________________ Nobody in the NBA can touch the Laker brand, which, like the uniform color, is pure gold.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
