Monday, September 22, 2008

K-Rod for MVP?

If you say so. And they say that only smart kids go to Stanford . . .
Posted by at

6 comments:

Unknown said...

Who the heck said that?

September 22, 2008 at 8:34 AM
TLA said...

I can't believe that article was published.

First, someone should remind this kid that Eckersley won the Cy and the MVP in 1992. K-Rod, on the other hand, will likely lose the Cy to Cliff Lee, which makes his MVP argument even more preposterous.

I'm not sure how that kid got to the conclusion that the Angels are a product of K-Rod's season, but it seems pretty clear that the Angels' success this season is largely a product of luck (being on the right side of 1- & 2-run games) and K-Rod's season is a product of the Angels and their luck. Not the other way around.

His save percentage this year is basically Mariano Rivera's career save percentage. Mo has never won a Cy or MVP. Mo's highest finishes are 2nd and 9th respectively. So how is K-Rod's season MVP worthy?

So much for holding out hope for the next generation of journalists.

Sorry, I know I just spent too much time beating a dead horse.

September 22, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Vegas Watch said...

" Scott Shields, their eighth-inning setup man, has blown five of his eight save opportunities. With a majority of his earned runs coming with two outs, his closing abilities are questionable.

The heir apparent to Frankie, if and when he leaves, is Jose Arredondo, who leads all relievers with nine victories. However, Arredondo has blown all six of his save opportunities."

Man, I wonder why. Seriously, I can't think of a single reason Shields and Arredondo haven't racked up a ton of saves, besides the fact that they clearly suck.

September 22, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Daniel said...

Ugh. No. I won't argue if he gets a few votes for Cy Young. If he finishes third behind Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay, that would be okay (even though Joe Saunders and Ervin Santana have both been more valuable). But MVP votes? That shouldn't happen.

Although if I have to hear one more "the Angels' success has been largely a product of luck," I might march on SABR headquarters with torches, pitchforks, and signs that read: "Closers are under-rated."

September 22, 2008 at 12:54 PM
drunyon said...

He seems to be saying that the save percentages of "Rodriguez" and "the rest of the bullpen" should be given equal weight. Since Rodriguez is at 90 percent and the rest of the bullpen is at 20 percent, I think he's arguing that Rodriguez is clearly the BEST CLOSER EVAR.

Somebody should probably let him know that setup guys are always going to have bad save percentages. Why? They get a blown save for giving up the lead, but get no "save" credit for holding the lead. Basically: you can blow a save by giving up runs anywhere in the last three innings, but you can only record a save by getting the last out, which Shields and others are only going to do on very rare occasions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's how it works. This Stanford educated dude seems to have no clue.

September 24, 2008 at 11:39 PM
TLA said...

I'll qualify my comment re "largely a product of luck." No one is saying that the Angels are not a good team. They clearly are. However, the degree of their success this year is largely a product of luck. For example, they have a record of 98-60 with an expected W-L of 87-71. Of course, it does not hurt that they also play an unbalanced schedule against a piece of crap division (zero teams are .500 or better or have an expected W-L of .500 or better).

September 25, 2008 at 8:45 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)