Why exclude postseason performance for baseball awards?
October 25, 2007 7:49 AM Subscribe
[BaseballFilter] Am I right that ballots for MLB's Cy Young, MVP, and Rookie of the Year awards (among others) are cast before the postseason begins, and, if I have that right, what is the rationale for not considering, or at least giving voters a chance to consider, postseason performance?
Best answer: 1) Yes, voting is done.
2) Because not everyone makes the postseason.
posted by inigo2 at 7:57 AM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
2) Because not everyone makes the postseason.
posted by inigo2 at 7:57 AM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
Further, the only player awards that really emphasize the team's achievement are MVP (only once has it gone to a player on a crappy team, A-Rod back with the Rangers), and to a lesser extent Cy Young (because of the emphasis on wins).
posted by inigo2 at 7:58 AM on October 25, 2007
posted by inigo2 at 7:58 AM on October 25, 2007
Also, post season successes can be flukey and seem more valuable than they actually are. In the post season, a player can be batting .200 but hit one critical hit, and that critical hit will make sports writers forget that the player had sucked in the post season (and maybe the entire season). Just look at players like David Eckstein.
posted by drezdn at 8:02 AM on October 25, 2007
posted by drezdn at 8:02 AM on October 25, 2007
Further, the only player awards that really emphasize the team's achievement are MVP (only once has it gone to a player on a crappy team, A-Rod back with the Rangers), and to a lesser extent Cy Young (because of the emphasis on wins).
Andre Dawson, 1987, last place Cubs, NL MVP.
It usually goes to someone at least in contention, but not always.
posted by stevis23 at 8:14 AM on October 25, 2007
Andre Dawson, 1987, last place Cubs, NL MVP.
It usually goes to someone at least in contention, but not always.
posted by stevis23 at 8:14 AM on October 25, 2007
Response by poster: Don't mean to turn this into DebateFilter, but consider this counter-example: two pitchers contend for the Cy Young, one was marginally better in the regular season, but is vastly outperformed by the other in the postseason. Hard to say that the former was the "best pitcher of the year", no?
posted by jmstephan at 8:16 AM on October 25, 2007
posted by jmstephan at 8:16 AM on October 25, 2007
Response by poster: Also, many thanks for the answers. I was most interested in finding out if voting was closed.
A follow-up: does anyone know what organization issues the award (e.g. MLB or Baseball Writers of America) and are the voting rules posted online? My searches have been fruitless.
posted by jmstephan at 8:19 AM on October 25, 2007
A follow-up: does anyone know what organization issues the award (e.g. MLB or Baseball Writers of America) and are the voting rules posted online? My searches have been fruitless.
posted by jmstephan at 8:19 AM on October 25, 2007
Also, post season successes can be flukey and seem more valuable than they actually are.
JD Drew says hello.
The postseason is such a small sample of games that it can't be said that the best player in the postseason is the best player in the regular season.
Alex Rodriguez (and no, I'm not about to go on an A-Rod Chokes In October rant) had a fantastic regular season this year, but didn't match that level of performance in the playoffs. He's still the MVP of the AL, by a wiiiiiiide margin.
two pitchers contend for the Cy Young, one was marginally better in the regular season, but is vastly outperformed by the other in the postseason. Hard to say that the former was the "best pitcher of the year", no?
Not hard to say at all. "best pitcher of the year" is a much different thing than "best pitcher of the last three weeks".
posted by pdb at 8:22 AM on October 25, 2007
JD Drew says hello.
The postseason is such a small sample of games that it can't be said that the best player in the postseason is the best player in the regular season.
Alex Rodriguez (and no, I'm not about to go on an A-Rod Chokes In October rant) had a fantastic regular season this year, but didn't match that level of performance in the playoffs. He's still the MVP of the AL, by a wiiiiiiide margin.
two pitchers contend for the Cy Young, one was marginally better in the regular season, but is vastly outperformed by the other in the postseason. Hard to say that the former was the "best pitcher of the year", no?
Not hard to say at all. "best pitcher of the year" is a much different thing than "best pitcher of the last three weeks".
posted by pdb at 8:22 AM on October 25, 2007
Postseason statistics don't count towards a player's career stats. Or regular season stats, for that matter.
I guess it's because until 1969, the postseason consisted of only the World Series - a maximum of 7 games. But now teams can play as many as 19 postseason games.
posted by mbd1mbd1 at 8:24 AM on October 25, 2007
I guess it's because until 1969, the postseason consisted of only the World Series - a maximum of 7 games. But now teams can play as many as 19 postseason games.
posted by mbd1mbd1 at 8:24 AM on October 25, 2007
A follow-up: does anyone know what organization issues the award
It's the BBWAA, and all I know is that one sportswriter in every MLB city gets a vote, and each one ranks players in order 1-10 and the player with the most points (points on a sliding scale, #1 votes getting the most points) wins the award. There has long been criticism of this method of voting, because it leads to, shall we say, non-scientific methods of evaluating what "best" means.
One other quirk - Most major national publications (NYT, SI, etc) do not allow their writers to cast ballots, even though their writers are probably members of the BBWAA.
posted by pdb at 8:27 AM on October 25, 2007
It's the BBWAA, and all I know is that one sportswriter in every MLB city gets a vote, and each one ranks players in order 1-10 and the player with the most points (points on a sliding scale, #1 votes getting the most points) wins the award. There has long been criticism of this method of voting, because it leads to, shall we say, non-scientific methods of evaluating what "best" means.
One other quirk - Most major national publications (NYT, SI, etc) do not allow their writers to cast ballots, even though their writers are probably members of the BBWAA.
posted by pdb at 8:27 AM on October 25, 2007
Best answer: This wikipedia site has links to each award given. At each award's individual page, it tells who gives the award, who votes on it, voting rules (for some awards), and what requirements there are to be eligible.
jmstephan, yes, I see your point, but then what happens if the "marginally better" pitcher hadn't made the playoffs? How do you make your determination then? Sox/Beckett fan?
stevis23, good call; I really shouldn't have said "only once"
posted by inigo2 at 8:28 AM on October 25, 2007
jmstephan, yes, I see your point, but then what happens if the "marginally better" pitcher hadn't made the playoffs? How do you make your determination then? Sox/Beckett fan?
stevis23, good call; I really shouldn't have said "only once"
posted by inigo2 at 8:28 AM on October 25, 2007
According to this page, the BBWAA votes for and presents the MVP, which MLB recognizes as the only "official" MVP award. The BBWAA also votes for the Cy Young.
And you have to be a member of the BBWAA for 10 years to vote for the Hall of Fame, which is technically a separate organization from MLB.
posted by mbd1mbd1 at 8:28 AM on October 25, 2007
And you have to be a member of the BBWAA for 10 years to vote for the Hall of Fame, which is technically a separate organization from MLB.
posted by mbd1mbd1 at 8:28 AM on October 25, 2007
Regarding the Cy Young, what about years like 2000, when Pedro Martinez was clearly the best AL pitcher of the year (18-4, with a 1.74 ERA). He was so clearly the best that he got all 28 first place votes. Should the fact that the Red Sox didn't make the postseason that year hurt him, when clearly it wasn't his fault they didn't?
posted by cerebus19 at 8:32 AM on October 25, 2007
posted by cerebus19 at 8:32 AM on October 25, 2007
Don't mean to turn this into DebateFilter, but consider this counter-example: two pitchers contend for the Cy Young, one was marginally better in the regular season, but is vastly outperformed by the other in the postseason. Hard to say that the former was the "best pitcher of the year", no?
This is a case from this year's AL Cy Young. Josh Beckett (BOS) and CC Sabathia (CLE) had similar stats (Beckett - , 3.27 ERA, 1.14 WHIP, 20 Wins, 194 Ks, 200 IP; Sabathia - 3.21 ERA, 1.14 WHIP, 19 W, 209 K, 241 IP) but almost all of what I read around season's end would give it to Sabathia, for keeping similar averages over more innings basically. But if you've seen any of Beckett's starts in the playoffs, he's been unhittable and clearly the better pitcher.
posted by andifsohow at 8:51 AM on October 25, 2007
This is a case from this year's AL Cy Young. Josh Beckett (BOS) and CC Sabathia (CLE) had similar stats (Beckett - , 3.27 ERA, 1.14 WHIP, 20 Wins, 194 Ks, 200 IP; Sabathia - 3.21 ERA, 1.14 WHIP, 19 W, 209 K, 241 IP) but almost all of what I read around season's end would give it to Sabathia, for keeping similar averages over more innings basically. But if you've seen any of Beckett's starts in the playoffs, he's been unhittable and clearly the better pitcher.
posted by andifsohow at 8:51 AM on October 25, 2007
Response by poster: Regarding the Cy Young, what about years like 2000, when Pedro Martinez was clearly the best AL pitcher of the year (18-4, with a 1.74 ERA). He was so clearly the best that he got all 28 first place votes. Should the fact that the Red Sox didn't make the postseason that year hurt him, when clearly it wasn't his fault they didn't?
Absolutely not. My point is that the voters should have the chance to consider the postseason and give whatever weight to the performances there that they see fit to give. My sense is that even if voters had considered postseason performances in 2000, it is very likely that they would still have awarded the Cy Young to Pedro Martinez given his advantage in ERA over the other contenders.
posted by jmstephan at 8:55 AM on October 25, 2007
Absolutely not. My point is that the voters should have the chance to consider the postseason and give whatever weight to the performances there that they see fit to give. My sense is that even if voters had considered postseason performances in 2000, it is very likely that they would still have awarded the Cy Young to Pedro Martinez given his advantage in ERA over the other contenders.
posted by jmstephan at 8:55 AM on October 25, 2007
Response by poster: This is a case from this year's AL Cy Young. Josh Beckett (BOS) and CC Sabathia (CLE) had similar stats (Beckett - , 3.27 ERA, 1.14 WHIP, 20 Wins, 194 Ks, 200 IP; Sabathia - 3.21 ERA, 1.14 WHIP, 19 W, 209 K, 241 IP) but almost all of what I read around season's end would give it to Sabathia, for keeping similar averages over more innings basically. But if you've seen any of Beckett's starts in the playoffs, he's been unhittable and clearly the better pitcher.
Indeed, as inigo2 sensed, this is precisely the situation I had in mind.
posted by jmstephan at 8:58 AM on October 25, 2007
Indeed, as inigo2 sensed, this is precisely the situation I had in mind.
posted by jmstephan at 8:58 AM on October 25, 2007
But if you've seen any of Beckett's starts in the playoffs, he's been unhittable and clearly the better pitcher.
If you're going to go that route, then wait until everyone's career is over and decide. The fact that Beckett is unhittable in the playoffs (man, last night he looked like the reincarnation of Koufax) is irrelevant to his performance during the season, which is what these awards are about—not whether someone is in some higher sense "the better pitcher."
Also, fuck Tom Glavine.
/bitter Mets fan
posted by languagehat at 10:10 AM on October 25, 2007
If you're going to go that route, then wait until everyone's career is over and decide. The fact that Beckett is unhittable in the playoffs (man, last night he looked like the reincarnation of Koufax) is irrelevant to his performance during the season, which is what these awards are about—not whether someone is in some higher sense "the better pitcher."
Also, fuck Tom Glavine.
/bitter Mets fan
posted by languagehat at 10:10 AM on October 25, 2007
jmstephan...are you, sir, Josh Beckett?
In all seriousness, though, I really don't think inclusion of postseason play would be fair. For one thing, a great pitcher stuck with an otherwise crappy/mediocre team won't even get to postseason play. For another, after the long, slow slog of the regular season, the games that Really Mean Something have a tendency to stand out in people's minds -- again, not necessarily fairly.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:18 AM on October 25, 2007
In all seriousness, though, I really don't think inclusion of postseason play would be fair. For one thing, a great pitcher stuck with an otherwise crappy/mediocre team won't even get to postseason play. For another, after the long, slow slog of the regular season, the games that Really Mean Something have a tendency to stand out in people's minds -- again, not necessarily fairly.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:18 AM on October 25, 2007
The post-season has its own awards to recognize those who played exceptionally well during the playoffs/World Series. Josh Beckett,for example, has a chance to win World Series MVP, so its not as if playing exceptionally well during the post-season goes unrewarded. As others have noted, it would be completely unfair to consider post-season play for regular season awards because only a limited number of players get to participate.
posted by The Gooch at 10:24 AM on October 25, 2007
posted by The Gooch at 10:24 AM on October 25, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 7:56 AM on October 25, 2007