Master Index of Archived Threads


1990 American League Cy Young Award

AG/DC Jul 22 2008 01:57 PM

Talk of Bobby Thigpen got me thinking about his 1990 season, in which he was pitching in air he never breathed again. A lot of pitchers did. I always think I have a good idea who the best pitcher in the league is. In 1990, I had no idea. Vote for your Cy Young Award Winner. You get three votes, first, second, and third. I believe scoring goes 5-3-1. (It's worth noting, that when comparing starters and relievers, that ERA+ is kind of a false stat in that, since ERA gets lower instead of higher, it becomes more distorted the lower an ERA gets. It's like ERA is acted upon by an exponent rather than a factor.) Leading candidates are: Roger Clemens, BOS: 21-6, 228 1/3 IP, 1.93 ERA, 1.08 WHIP, 209 SO, 54, BB, 213 ERA+. Dennis Eckersley, OAK: 4-2, 48 Sv, 73 1/3 IP, 0.61 ERA, 0.61 WHIP, 73 SO, 4 BB, 606 ERA+. Chuck Finley, CAL: 18-9, 236 IP, 2.40 ERA, 1.23 WHIP, 177 SO, 81 BB, 158 ERA+. Dave Stieb, TOR: 18-6, 208 2/3 IP, 2.93 ERA, 1.16 WHIP, 125 SO, 64 BB, 140 ERA+. Dave Stewart, OAK: 22-11, 267 IP, 2.56 ERA, 1.16 WHIP, 166 SO, 145 ERA+. Bobby Thigpen, 4-6, 57 Sv, 88 2/3 IP, 1.83 ERA, 1.04 WHIP, 70 SO, 32 BB, 210 ERA+. Bob Welch, OAK: 27-6, 238 IP, 2.95 ERA, 1.22 WHIP, 127 SO, 77 BB, 126 ERA+. You can look for other American League pitchers here, but those guys should likely provide your field. AL Manager of the Year that season? Jeff Torborg.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 22 2008 02:02 PM

1. Clemens 2. Eckersley 3. Stewart

metirish Jul 22 2008 02:04 PM

I would go Welch - 1 Clemens - 2 Thigpen - 3

Methead Jul 22 2008 02:07 PM

I remember thinking at the time that Welch deserved it. Upon looking at the numbers now though, it looks like: 1) Clemens 2) Eckersley 3) Stewart

Benjamin Grimm Jul 22 2008 02:08 PM

I'll vote Clemens/Stewart/Welch.

AG/DC Jul 22 2008 02:09 PM

Crane Pool Re-Writing History Forum Giving Clemens Record Eighth Cy Young

metsguyinmichigan Jul 22 2008 02:12 PM

Stewart Welch Eckerlsy

AG/DC Jul 22 2008 02:13 PM

metsguy goes all-Oakland.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 22 2008 02:14 PM

Big Asshole Wins Big Honor Roger 'Bedazzled' at Record Award; Jabs Wife in Ass with Syringe

Benjamin Grimm Jul 22 2008 02:15 PM

="AG/DC"] Crane Pool Re-Writing History Forum Giving Clemens Record Eighth Cy Young That's because we know a "titan" when we see one.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Jul 22 2008 02:21 PM

1. Clemens 2. Stewart 3. Finley

Frayed Knot Jul 22 2008 02:27 PM

Check out these stats at the end of Eck's line? -- 73 SO, 4 BB

batmagadanleadoff Jul 22 2008 02:35 PM

Clemens should've won the 1990 Cy Young award unanimously. No one was close. He pitched in Fenway that year.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 22 2008 02:42 PM

Bob Welch, 1990's AL Cy Young award winner, finished 9th in [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1990.shtml#ALmvp]that season's MVP vote,[/url] behind his pitching teammates Dave Stewart (8th place) and Dennis Eckersley (6th Place). Clemens finished 3rd in that season's MVP voting.

AG/DC Jul 22 2008 02:48 PM

="batmagadanleadoff"]Clemens should've won the 1990 Cy Young award unanimously. No one was close. He pitched in Fenway that year. See, my position is that this is really hard and that others are close. Four walks.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 22 2008 02:49 PM

="AG/DC"] Crane Pool Re-Writing History Forum Giving Clemens Record Eighth Cy Young Let's redo the 1985 MVP vote.

AG/DC Jul 22 2008 02:49 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 22 2008 02:54 PM

It's like he's going to hit Kadafi in the head with a fastball.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 22 2008 02:52 PM

I'd like to see the 1988 NL MVP re-voted. I really thought Darryl was going to win that one. (And I'd much rather see the Mets end their MVP drought than their no-hitter drought.)

batmagadanleadoff Jul 22 2008 02:57 PM

="AG/DC"] ="batmagadanleadoff"]Clemens should've won the 1990 Cy Young award unanimously. No one was close. He pitched in Fenway that year. See, my position is that this is really hard and that others are close. Four walks. There's different levels of close. There's close to Clemens, on the one hand, but not close enough that anyone could reasonbly claim that Clemens wasn't the best. As I see it. For me, the decision becomes easy once I eliminate the relievers from first place consideration. I don't see how Eck or Thigpen could match Clemens in value pitching less than one third of the innings Clemens pitched. Welch had a gaudy won-loss record because he was very good (though not Clemens good) and received more run support than just about anybody in the AL that season. And then there are the ballparks - Fenway and the Oakland Coliseum - two stadiums about as far apart as possible on the spectrum of offense for 1990.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 22 2008 02:57 PM

Bob Welch, overproduced

batmagadanleadoff Jul 22 2008 02:58 PM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'd like to see the 1988 NL MVP re-voted. I really thought Darryl was going to win that one. (And I'd much rather see the Mets end their MVP drought than their no-hitter drought.) I was deciding between 88 and 85 in my Gooden post. 88- I vote Straw.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Jul 22 2008 03:01 PM

Name VORP/WARP3 Clemens 77.2/13.0 Stewart 71.1/7.9 Finley 61.1/10.2 Hanson 50.9/8.7 Stieb 49.9/7.7 Eckersley 32.5/7.8 Thigpen 30.2/8.7 Welch 47.7/5.1 Boddicker 44.0/8.5 Hibbard 43.4/5.9 Appier 41.2/7.4 I think it's Clemens, easily. Past that, not so sure.

Valadius Jul 22 2008 03:24 PM

Eckersley Clemens Stewart

Gwreck Jul 22 2008 03:52 PM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: (And I'd much rather see the Mets end their MVP drought than their no-hitter drought.) ??? Really?

Gwreck Jul 22 2008 03:52 PM

1. Clemens 2. Eckersley 3. Stewart Unfortunately.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 22 2008 03:55 PM

Gwreck wrote: ="Benjamin Grimm"](And I'd much rather see the Mets end their MVP drought than their no-hitter drought.) ??? Really? Yeah! Without a doubt! I'd much rather see six months of greatness than nine innings worth. I don't even care about the no-hitter thing anymore. In a way, I'd like the Mets to finish their 50th season (2011) as no-hit virgins.

AG/DC Jul 22 2008 05:25 PM

Vince Coleman Firecracker wrote: Name VORP/WARP3 Clemens 77.2/13.0 Stewart 71.1/7.9 Finley 61.1/10.2 Hanson 50.9/8.7 Stieb 49.9/7.7 Eckersley 32.5/7.8 Thigpen 30.2/8.7 Welch 47.7/5.1 Boddicker 44.0/8.5 Hibbard 43.4/5.9 Appier 41.2/7.4 I think it's Clemens, easily. Past that, not so sure. I hear you, but I think VoRP is pretty unreliavle for relievers. Does it factor in leverage like m.e.t.b.o.t. does?

batmagadanleadoff Jul 22 2008 05:41 PM

Does metbot do defensive leverage? If so, what does he do to separate the pitching from the fielding?

Frayed Knot Jul 22 2008 06:54 PM

Gwreck wrote: ="Benjamin Grimm"](And I'd much rather see the Mets end their MVP drought than their no-hitter drought.) ??? Really? Oh HELL Yeah!!

Vince Coleman Firecracker Jul 22 2008 07:53 PM

AG/DC wrote: I hear you, but I think VoRP is pretty unreliavle for relievers. Does it factor in leverage like m.e.t.b.o.t. does? [url=http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6231]Nope.[/url] ]No adjustment for pitcher leverage: Because of the huge differences in playing time between starting pitchers and relievers, VORP values even the most elite relievers at a far lower rate than a comparable starter. The best reliever in baseball last season, Boston’s Jonathan Papelbon, ranked only 37th in VORP, roughly on a par with Scott Kazmir. While many feel that this is an appropriate valuation, some metrics give relievers extra credit for pitching in higher-leverage situations than their starting pitcher colleagues. We’ll have more about those systems in future editions. Yeah, relievers get killed on VORP (perhaps deservedly), but I can't see giving the CY Young to a relief pitcher when a starter has an all-time great season.

AG/DC Jul 22 2008 10:24 PM

Well, two relievers had all-time great seasons there, and I think all-time great seasons for starters are like Walter Johnson throwing 370 innings. Those relievers took high-leverage innings, and were great, and I'd like to see what m.e.t.b.o.t. has to say about that.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Jul 23 2008 03:44 AM

AG/DC wrote: Well, two relievers had all-time great seasons there, and I think all-time great seasons for starters are like Walter Johnson throwing 370 innings. Since 1990, the following pitchers have had better seasons than Clemens' in terms of VORP: 2004- Johan Santana 2003-Esteban Loaiza 2002- Derek Lowe 2000- Pedro Martinez 1999- Pedro Martinez 1998- Roger Clemens, Pedro Martinez 1997- Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Andy Pettitte 1996- Pat Hentgen, Alex Fernandez, Ken Hill, Roger Clemens 1995- Randy Johnson 1993- Kevin Appier Some weird entries up there. So, at least by VORP, Clemens' 1990 has been the 16th best season since 1990. You're right- that's probably not an all-time great year. I gotta look into this race more closely. (What's up with 96, by the way? Hentgen's VORP is one of the highest I've ever seen, and 4 people beat a 77.2!)

AG/DC Jul 23 2008 06:23 AM

Will do that next maybe. Alex Fernandez? Which one?

Vince Coleman Firecracker Jul 23 2008 07:10 AM

Whoops, those were only the AL pitchers with a better VORP since 1990. Throw the following on that list: 1993- Jose Rijo, Greg Maddux 1994- Greg Maddux 1995- Greg Maddux 1996- Kevin Brown 1997- Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez 1998- Greg Maddux, Kevin Brown, Tom Glavine 1999- Randy Johnson 2000- Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Kevin Brown 2001- Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling 2002- Randy Johnson 2005- Roger Clemens So that makes Clemens' 1990 the 34th best season by VORP since then. Oh, and here's [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/fernaal01.shtml]Alex Fernandez[/url].

batmagadanleadoff Jul 23 2008 08:01 AM

Vince Coleman Firecracker wrote: Yeah, relievers get killed on VORP (perhaps deservedly), but I can't see giving the CY Young to a relief pitcher when a starter has an all-time great season. I would tend to agree here. Consider the following hypothetical. The starting star pitcher on your favorite baseball team opens the season in phenomenal fashion, throwing a complete game two-hit shutout and striking out 11 batters. He continues to pitch at this level for the entire month of April, finishing the month with a 4-0 record and some no-decisions thrown in. He's the pitcher of the month and is leading the league in K's and ERA. His dominance continues through the month of May. On Memorial Day, he closes out the month by pitching a complete game no-hitter. His record now stands at 9-0. He is leading the league in every single important pitching statistical category and makes the cover of Sports Illustrated for the issue following his no-hitter. (Jinx!) After his no-hitter, while travelling back to his home, he is involved in a minor automobile collision and, while nobody is seriously hurt, the star pitcher is jostled around from the impact and bangs his throwing shoulder against the car interior. The pitcher sustains a season-ending injury. Could you vote this starting pitcher for the Cy Young Award?

Vince Coleman Firecracker Jul 23 2008 09:11 AM

="batmagadanleadoff"]Could you vote this starting pitcher for the Cy Young Award? Well, you could, based on inning for inning value. No one would, though. But relievers, although they pitch much few innings than starters, affect the outcome of many more games than starters. If the relievers are used for the highest-leverage outs in most of those games, you could argue their contribution is comparable to a starter's. The reason I would still give a "tie-breaker" to a starter is that I don't totally believe that relievers were or are used consistently in the highest leverage situations.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 23 2008 10:38 AM

Vince Coleman Firecracker wrote: "...relievers, although they pitch much few innings than starters, affect the outcome of many more games than starters. But to what extent? A reliever who closes out the ninth inning effectively participates in three batter-pitcher confrontations. All else being equal, a "closer" who retires the side in the last inning of a game is no more impressive to me than a journeyman mopup-man who does the same in the sixth inning. I wouldn't need to look at leverage statistics because I know intuitively that a reliever, even a great one, who pitches 60 or 70 innings in a season cannot have the same impact of an All Star caliber starter who pitches over 200 innings. A guy with 10 bank accounts, each worth $25K, isn't wealthier than a guy with a single million dollar account unless you're basing wealth on the # of bank accounts.

AG/DC Jul 23 2008 10:51 AM

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="Vince Coleman Firecracker"]"...relievers, although they pitch much few innings than starters, affect the outcome of many more games than starters. But to what extent? That's what makes this hard. batmagadanleadoff wrote: A reliever who closes out the ninth inning effectively participates in three batter-pitcher confrontations. All else being equal, a "closer" who retires the side in the last inning of a game is no more impressive to me than a journeyman mopup-man who does the same in the sixth inning. I disagree at two levels. Firstly, it is more impressive. Secondly, impressiveness isn't what we're measuring here, but rather value. batmagadanleadoff wrote: I wouldn't need to look at leverage statistics because I know intuitively that a reliever, even a great one, who pitches 60 or 70 innings in a season cannot have the same impact of an All Star caliber starter who pitches over 200 innings. I think it's definitely worth looking at. Look at that ERA of Eckersley's. batmagadanleadoff wrote: A guy with 10 bank accounts, each worth $25K, isn't wealthier than a guy with a single million dollar account unless you're basing wealth on the # of bank accounts. You're losing me. The point is not all outs are worth the same amount at all.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 23 2008 11:07 AM

AG/DC wrote: I disagree at two levels. Firstly, it is more impressive. Secondly, impressiveness isn't what we're measuring here, but rather value. I used the word "impressive" to mean value. So semantics aside, I'm not so sure that there is more value in pitching an effective 9th inning as opposed to, say, a sixth inning, though I'm open-minded enough to be convinced otherwise. The ninth inning doesn't exist in a vacuum. A team can only position itself to give its' closer a save opportunity based on what it did in the previous eight innings. AG/DC wrote: Look at that ERA of Eckersley's. Reliever's ERA's are highly unreliable. Here's why: the pitcher's slate is wiped clean after he records the inning's third out. As you know, baserunners left on base do not carry over to the next inning. Because relievers frequently enter innings where the defense has already gotten at least one out, sometimes two, a reliever in those situations is allowed to record less than three outs before his slate is wiped clean. By comparison, a starter who walks the first three batters in an inning must either dominate the rest of the inning or be very lucky (probably some of both) to keep his ERA at 0.00 for the inning. This isn't meant to mimimize Eckersley's brilliant 1990 season. But he was a 70 inning pitcher. Clemens was brillianter!

AG/DC Jul 23 2008 11:31 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 23 2008 11:38 AM

You don't need to explain to me relievers' ERA. But Eckersley rarely pitched in split innings. I don't know why you would mention it if it isn't relelevant to him. Let's use the win expectancy finder. From 1979 to 2006, the home team comes up in the bottom of the sixth of a tie game and they have a 60% chance of winning. Their leadoff batter hits a double and they have a 67% chance of winning --- seven percent swing. The home team comes up in the bottom of the ninth of a tie game and they have a 65.6% chance of winning. Their leadoff batter hits a double and they have a 79.8% chance of winning --- a 14.2% swing. That sort of difference is on every outcome. We also need to concern ourselves with the quality of a batter. A closer in a tight game tends to either face the better hitters, or pinch-hitters replacing the weaker (or poorly matched) hitters.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 23 2008 11:33 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 23 2008 11:45 AM

Win-Expectancy data for the ninth inning is based on what preceded it. A team entering the last inning will have x chance of winning the game only because of what happened earlier. I'm not so sure that the modern closer faces the best hitters, although I would like to see them used that way, at least on the Mets, anyway. Modern closers pitch the ninth inning on just about every team. There is no higher probability of facing the meat of the order in the ninth inning. I would agree that a closer probably faces a greater number of pinch-hitters, but those ph'ers are usually of lesser quality, otherwise they'd be in the starting lineup. I would also concede that those pinch-hitters usually present a lefty-right platoon that favors the hitter. However, a manager can and often does do the same against a star starting pitcher by tailoring much of the entire lineup in that manner.

AG/DC Jul 23 2008 11:43 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 26 2008 08:22 PM

And Eck's 1990 really, I think, forces the issue. What's maddening is that the voters agree with the "no closers unless no starter stands out" in the Cy Young voting, but ignore it in the MVP voting. CY: Welch first, Eck fifth. MVP: Eck sixth, Welch ninth.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Jul 23 2008 02:08 PM

Okay, setting aside in-game situation for a moment, I was thinking about quality of batters faced. In 1990 Clemens faced 920 PA's and allowed 257 runners in 31 starts, contributing 663 outs. Per game, he averaged 29.7 PA's and allowed 8.3 runners. On an average start, he would have gone through the opponent's order 3.3 times. If we can assume that a team's best hitters are somewhere around 3-4-5 in the order, he faced the opponent's best hitters in about 11.5 PA's/game. For the season, that would be around 356 times. If, say, half of the runners he allowed were from the 3-4-5 hitters (which is a guess, but it seems reasonable to me), that would be 228 outs recorded in 356 PA's (64%) against an opponent's best hitters. Eckersley faced 262 PA's and allowed 46 runners in 63 games, contributing 216 outs. If he was always brought in to face the other team's best hitters his 216 outs in 262 PA's (82%) would be a lot more impressive than Clemens' 228/356, but it's safe to assume he wasn't always brought in against the middle of the order. So let's say that 2/3 of the time he was facing the best part of the order and he allowed baserunners at his usual pace. That would leave him with 144 outs in 175 PA's, meaning although he was much better per plate appearance against his opponent's best hitters, he only recorded 63% of the outs against them that Clemens did. I don't know if this is really all that significant, I was just trying to think of a different way of looking at it. There's also a ton of assumptions in there- for all I know Clemens gave up all his baserunners when facing the best hitters, but it makes a little sense to me. As for situation, B-R's splits ([url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/psplit.cgi?n1=clemero02&year=1990]Clemens[/url], [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/psplit.cgi?n1=eckerde01&year=1990]Eck[/url]) show that their numbers in "big" situations are pretty comparable: (this'll be Name//2 outs, RISP PA/OBP/SLG//Late & Close PA/OBP/SLG//High Leverage PA/OBP/SLG) Clemens // 93/.215/.227 // 130/.223/.200 // 194/.223/.243 Eckersley // 29/.241/.222 // 197/.183/.240 // 128/.164/.218 So they were both superb in "pressure" situations, but Clemens did it a lot more often while runners were on (runners he allowed) and in whatever B-R calls "High Leverage". Clemens recorded 151 "HL" outs against 43 base runners allowed, Eck had 107 against 21 base runners allowed (interestingly, 3 of his 4 walks were in high leverage situations). I dunno- I think their value to their teams in big situations is comparable when both quality and quantity is considered, but Roger Clemens also had much more value in lower leverage situations simply due to the vastly greater quantity he contributed (512 outs in 726 PA's vs 109 outs in 134 PA). If any of my math is wrong, forgive me- I'm juggling this post with the work I need to finish before I get fired. And I didn't even look at Thigpen.

AG/DC Jul 23 2008 02:30 PM

I'm not suggesting that Eck faced the opponents' best hitters with necessarily any more frequency than Clemens did, but that he faced the opponents worst hitters with less frequency. Here's something I think we can agree is a fact: a National League closer almost never faces a pitcher --- has little idea what it's like.

AG/DC Jul 26 2008 07:07 PM

Eckersley Clemens Finley

Nymr83 Jul 26 2008 08:00 PM

1. clemens 2. eckersley 3. finley

AG/DC Jul 26 2008 09:30 PM

Thus far... John Cougar Lunchbucket metirish Methead Benjamin Grimm metsguy- inmichigan Vince Coleman Firecracker valadius Gwreck AG/DC Nymr83 Total Share Original Vote Original Share Clemens 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 39 0.78 77 0.55 Eckersley 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 23 0.46 2 0.01 Stewart 3 3 2 1 2 3 3 15 0.3 43 0.31 Welch 1 3 2 9 0.18 107 0.76 Finley 3 3 3 3 0.06 2 0.01 Thigpen 3 1 0.02 20 0.14 Steib 0 0 1 0.01

batmagadanleadoff Jul 27 2008 08:22 AM

AG/DC wrote: Thus far... If you're gonna make a fancy box and all, then I'll vote properly. 1. Clemens 2. Stewart 3. Finley

AG/DC Jul 27 2008 10:17 AM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Bob Welch, overproduced Wow, there I was thinking I would fill an empty niche as "The Adult-Oriented Rocker Who Affected His Presentation by Wearing a Beret and Holding a Stogie and Mic in the Same Hand," and Welch had me outpimped 30 years ago.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 27 2008 11:05 AM

AG/DC wrote: Let's use the win expectancy finder. Win-Expectancy data, like leverage, yields its' own particular quirks when applied to save situations. These statistics will credit a closer who preserves a lead without much regard for the quality of the save itself. Consider the following hypotheticals: Pitcher A is brought in to pitch the bottom of the ninth inning with his team ahead 3-0. The pitcher strikes out the only three batters he faces, preserving his team's win and recording a save for himself. The next day, Pitcher B appears in the bottom of the bottom of the ninth with his team coincidentally also ahead by the same score of 3-0. Pitcher B yields Home Runs to the first two batters he faces and then walks the next three batters. Pitcher B remains in the game and strikes out the following three batters, stranding all three baserunners and preserving a 3-2 victory for his team. As you may have figured out by now, the Win-Expectancy points (or leverage data) earned by Pitchers A and B are equal notwithstanding the qualitative disparity in their performances. This is so because the teams in the two examples had the precise same chance of winning at the beginning of the last half inning and also, obviously, after the last out was recorded (a 100% chance of winning). Here, Win-Expectancy data is concerned mainly with the starting and ending points. Of course, there is very little similarity in the character of the two saves just as traveling from NYC to Washington DC is not the same experience whether you're a passenger on Air Force-One or an SRO on an Amtrak train. Now I realize that in 1990, Eckersley and Thigpen weren't throwing many -if any- games like Pitcher B did above. But still, relying on Win-Expectancy (or leverage) data as support for an Eckersley Cy, only seems to magnify the greater amount of influence a starting pitcher exerts over the course of a season.

AG/DC Jul 27 2008 11:19 AM

I referenced the win expectancy data to distinguish the leverage of the sixth from the ninth. If pitcher B can walk that ridiculous tightrope all year, he's welcome to all the credit he can gather. But no reliever appears only with three-run leads (which lowers the leverage, anyhow), and none consistently chew up their cushion without exceeding it.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 27 2008 11:35 AM

AG/DC wrote: I referenced the win expectancy data to distinguish the leverage of the sixth from the ninth. Whatever the difference is, if there is one, shouldn't be credited to a reliever entering the ninth inning. Those differences, if they exist, are based wholly on the preceding action that occurred before the reliever entered. If we're clever enough to minimize the impact of, for example, RBI's or pitcher's W-L records because we know that those stats are based in large part on the contributions of many others, then we should likewise, not credit the closer with the win-expectancy percentages that apply to the closer's appearance. All things being equal, it's no easier retiring the side in the sixth inning than in the ninth. If Ramon Castro had hit three grand slam homers in the Mets last game of the season last year against the Marlins to force a tiebreaker, and then hit four more grand slam home runs over the next two tiebreaker game to propel the Mets into the post-season, you still wouldn't vote Castro for the NL MVP, would you? Don't the games played in April count the same?

AG/DC Jul 27 2008 11:43 AM

Things aren't equal, and it's harder. Harder and more important.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 27 2008 12:27 PM

="AG/DC"]If pitcher B can walk that ridiculous tightrope all year, he's welcome to all the credit he can gather. Which shouldn't be much more than you'd credit Doug Sisk with. Otherwise, what's so special about Eck's 1990? If it's all about saves, than put this years' K-Rod on the pedestal -- the saves leader who just might be the 5th best reliever in the AL this season.

AG/DC Jul 27 2008 12:30 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 29 2008 10:03 AM

You're making this a moving target. When Doug Sisk gets a 0.61 ERA, then we're in business.

Nymr83 Jul 27 2008 12:30 PM

did Eckersley blow a save that year? was it 48/48?

AG/DC Jul 27 2008 12:34 PM

Looks like he blew two saves, one of which turned into a vulture victory. http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/gl.cgi?n1=eckerde01&t=p&year=1990

Nymr83 Jul 27 2008 12:44 PM

ok so he was 96% in save situations, thats still exceptional for comparison, Gagne, a reliever who won the CY in 2003, was 55/55 with a 1.20 ERA in 82 1/3 with 137 k's, 20 walks, and a 0.692 whip. the 10 extra innings are pretty significant as he can now say he pitched more than 1/3 of the innings if his nearest competitors (Schmidt and Prior) while eckersley at 73 innings couldnt make that claim as to welch or clemens. i'm not saying 1/3 is a magic number, but its really hard to vote for a guy who has pitched so many less innings than the others.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 27 2008 12:46 PM

AG/DC wrote: You're making this a moving target. When Doug Sisk gets a 0.77 ERA, then we're in business. I wasn't equating Sisk with Eck. I thought you were equating Pitcher A with Pitcher B and answered (I thought, but maybe not) accordingly.