The Jake Arrieta Appreciation Thread

[chibears55]

You are free to live with your conspiracies

What the conspiracy?

The voters are human beings, not computers

Their fans of the game, fans of teams, they see what going on and who hot and all..

You have old school voters and new school. .
Not everyone looks to metrics to make their decision. .

Believe it or not some still look at the basic stats and not break it down into pieces ...

Some are gonna look at who done what lately and all..

I just believe that voters in the East and Central will lean more towards the pitcher they get to see, write, and talk about more then the two out West..
There no doubt having 2 pitchers on same team out West will hurt because voters/fan of Kershaw will vote for him and same with Greinke.

So, Greinke in particular could lose first place votes from West Coast writers that could cost him overall points in passing Arrieta. ..


This isn't a Conspiracy thought, its what it is when you have a situation like this because voters are human not computers.

 

[Bear Pride]

As for Arrieta, no votes should ever go in until the final game of the year. I don't understand jumping the gun unless you completely have your mind made up already.

It would be one thing if one guy was substantially out in front of other contenders (like this years NL Rookie of the year) but the Cy is so close in so many ways that it looks to be the last game for both guys before a decision is made.

A case could be made for both pitchers but sorry, Arrieta has been unhittable for longer than Greinke. They are ridiculously close and Greinke may technically still be lower than Arrieta but honestly who can say that this year he has been an overall better pitcher? He has been great, certainly deserving of the Cy Young but to me Arrieta has been better, especially in the stretch when this team was fighting for a wildcard spot.

The funny thing is that they don't announce the awards right away, so why conclude the voting early? If there was a rush to announce the award before the playoffs, then I could understand, but there isn't. Why the heck would you not take into account the most important time of the year? Seems absurd to me.

 

[Bear Pride]

I will trade that award for a win next Wednesday.

Me too! And I bet Jake would as well.

 

[Bear Pride]

I think everyone can agree that you can't mad either way between Jake and Zach. I think they both are deserving. Maybe 'co Cy's' would be in order. However, IMO, the single thing that puts Jake over the top is history. When you change history, then you've made a mark on the game. And Jake made history with his post AS game ERA mark with .44. Just awesome, imo!

 

[brett05]

I think everyone can agree that you can't mad either way between Jake and Zach. I think they both are deserving. Maybe 'co Cy's' would be in order. However, IMO, the single thing that puts Jake over the top is history. When you change history, then you've made a mark on the game. And Jake made history with his post AS game ERA mark with .44. Just awesome, imo!

And Zach made history by never having an era over 2.00 the entire season.

 

[brett05]

Me too! And I bet Jake would as well.

As would any pitcher.

 

[brett05]

The funny thing is that they don't announce the awards right away, so why conclude the voting early? If there was a rush to announce the award before the playoffs, then I could understand, but there isn't. Why the heck would you not take into account the most important time of the year? Seems absurd to me.

It's because they get 48 hours after the season concludes to have their votes in. Sad, but true.

 

[brett05]

What the conspiracy?

That voters split votes like you suggest.

Their fans of the game, fans of teams, they see what going on and who hot and all..

You'll get almost zero bias like that. Want proof of that in sports? See the NBA and the Chicago beat writer voting Malone over Jordan.

You have old school voters and new school. .
Not everyone looks to metrics to make their decision. .
Believe it or not some still look at the basic stats and not break it down into pieces ...

Some are gonna look at who done what lately and all..

So far all I keep reading is how voters will vote on the entire season and not just half of it. So while everyone will consider it, I think little to none reduce it down to a half a season.

I just believe that voters in the East and Central will lean more towards the pitcher they get to see, write, and talk about more then the two out West..
There no doubt having 2 pitchers on same team out West will hurt because voters/fan of Kershaw will vote for him and same with Greinke.
So, Greinke in particular could lose first place votes from West Coast writers that could cost him overall points in passing Arrieta. ..

Let's assume what you say is true, the voters split on Clayton and Zach. Unlike an election, voters get more than one vote. Those that vote for the Dodger will vote for the other Dodger for 2nd place. In essence that puts Jake a distant third. It won't happen like that though.

These folks are paid to make these decisions. They aren't just watching the local team. They are covering the sport. Again, back to King Felix. He gets votes even though he's on the West Coast. It again disspells your theory.

I am not saying Jake can't win. I'm saying that he won't win. I'm also saying the pitcher that should win, won't either.

This isn't a Conspiracy thought, its what it is when you have a situation like this because voters are human not computers.

It's a conspiracy theory. It won't happen.

 

[brett05]

POTM for Sept

Go Cubbies!!!!!

 

[DanTown]

And Zach made history by never having an era over 2.00 the entire season.

I can buy an argument that Kershaw is the Cy Young and I'd have a really hard time factoring in who to vote for but I can't see the argument for Grienke over Arrieta. While ERA is historic, the difference in FIP (1.10) leads me to believe that as much as I want to say Grienke's pitching was historic, I question any pitcher's ERA stat that has that much difference in his FIP.

Blind stat test

Guy A
FIP - 1.99
SO/W - 7.17
IP - 232
CG / SHO - 4/3

Guy B
FIP - 2.35
SO/W 4.92
IP - 229
CG / SHO - 4/3

Guy C
FIP - 2.76
SO/W - 5.00
IP - 222
CG / SHO - 1/0

To me, after looking at how the stats ended, it's clear that Kershaw (A) should be the Cy Young yet I can't imagine he will be. The ONLY stat Grienke (C) does well ahead of the other two in is ERA, which is a stat that isn't 100% pitcher controlled. It's not quite wins but it's closer to wins than other pitching stats.

In fact, it's hard to make an argument for anyone OTHER than Kershaw. Your argument is basically wins/second half (Jake) or ERA (Zach) but Kershaw had the lowest FIP in baseball starters (1.99) by over a third of a run (Arrieta was .36), struck out over 300 guys (25 more than anyone else in baseball), and if he pitches a regular start to end the year, he ends with 15 or so more innings than Arrieta and 20 more than Grienke.

 

[brett05]

But Jake was historic....CUBBIES!!!!!

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I can buy an argument that Kershaw is the Cy Young and I'd have a really hard time factoring in who to vote for but I can't see the argument for Grienke over Arrieta. While ERA is historic, the difference in FIP (1.10) leads me to believe that as much as I want to say Grienke's pitching was historic, I question any pitcher's ERA stat that has that much difference in his FIP.

Blind stat test

Guy A
FIP - 1.99
SO/W - 7.17
IP - 232
CG / SHO - 4/3

Guy B
FIP - 2.35
SO/W 4.92
IP - 229
CG / SHO - 4/3

Guy C
FIP - 2.76
SO/W - 5.00
IP - 222
CG / SHO - 1/0

To me, after looking at how the stats ended, it's clear that Kershaw (A) should be the Cy Young yet I can't imagine he will be. The ONLY stat Grienke (C) does well ahead of the other two in is ERA, which is a stat that isn't 100% pitcher controlled. It's not quite wins but it's closer to wins than other pitching stats.

In fact, it's hard to make an argument for anyone OTHER than Kershaw. Your argument is basically wins/second half (Jake) or ERA (Zach) but Kershaw had the lowest FIP in baseball starters (1.99) by over a third of a run (Arrieta was .36), struck out over 300 guys (25 more than anyone else in baseball), and if he pitches a regular start to end the year, he ends with 15 or so more innings than Arrieta and 20 more than Grienke.

The only reason you don't see more people making Kershaw's case is the Michael Jordan/LeBron James factor. There are some players that are so dominate that you can give them the same award every single year and not be wrong. Clayton Kershaw is 27 years old and is a lock for the HoF, again at 27 years of age. He is unquestionably the best pitcher in baseball, and don't give me the postseason numbers. You could give him the award every year, but voters are human and they think about that not to mention that you can make strong cases for the other two. In whatever order you choose Arrieta and Greinke will finish 1 & 2 with the best pitcher in baseball coming in 3rd.

Here's a crazy aside, if this were a year where there wasn't a dominant starter Mark Melancon could have one this with his ridiculous numbers. Closers are really only considered when there are no dominant starters and so that isn't happening but he will get a vote or two. Just shows you what a year in pitching this has been.

 

[brett05]

The only reason you don't see more people making Kershaw's case is the Michael Jordan/LeBron James factor. There are some players that are so dominate that you can give them the same award every single year and not be wrong. Clayton Kershaw is 27 years old and is a lock for the HoF, again at 27 years of age. He is unquestionably the best pitcher in baseball, and don't give me the postseason numbers. You could give him the award every year, but voters are human and they think about that not to mention that you can make strong cases for the other two. In whatever order you choose Arrieta and Greinke will finish 1 & 2 with the best pitcher in baseball coming in 3rd.

Here's a crazy aside, if this were a year where there wasn't a dominant starter Mark Melancon could have one this with his ridiculous numbers. Closers are really only considered when there are no dominant starters and so that isn't happening but he will get a vote or two. Just shows you what a year in pitching this has been.

I'm not sure about Mark. He's had a very nice year, but nothing like years that Kimbrell/Rivera have had and those two didn't get it IMO

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I'm not sure about Mark. He's had a very nice year, but nothing like years that Kimbrell/Rivera have had and those two didn't get it IMO

No, you're probably right. That Kimbrel year in 2012 was ridiculous and he came in 5th.

 

[brett05]

For me, Mark doesn't K nearly enough batters. I'd not want him long term as I think the hitters catch up.

 

[chibears55]

Why are you discussing Closers for Cubs ?

Was 30 saves for 2nd straight year, a 1.67 ERA, and 1.00 Whip
Not good enough?

Be silly for Cubs to spend money on a Closer when Rondon doing the job..
He 27 and under team control for 3 more years

 

[CSF77]

Why are you discussing Closers for Cubs ?

Was 30 saves for 2nd straight year, a 1.67 ERA, and 1.00 Whip
Not good enough?

Be silly for Cubs to spend money on a Closer when Rondon doing the job..
He 27 and under team control for 3 more years

They were talking the closer class and their chance at the CY young. Only happens when the season lacks a dominating starter.

 

[chibears55]

They were talking the closer class and their chance at the CY young. Only happens when the season lacks a dominating starter.

My bad.. guess i should of read it more

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Don't blow it tomorrow, bozo.

 

[CRM 114]

Don't blow it tomorrow, bozo.

How many more times are you going to call someone a bozo?