pitching the Nats are really deep now as well.. Those deals the Nats made really changed the tune for the pen.... The 3- Madson, Kentzler, and Doolittle have come to DC and only have put together 28 innings with 4 runs given up together. That's pretty damn good. Since the Break- Gio and Roark have pitched both extremely well. Scherzer had another great outing tonight. Edwin Jackson has come in and has 5 starts and 30 innings. If Strasburg can come in and get going, the Nats pitching looks extremely tough. Especially if a guy like a Koda Glover can return from the DL and gets going.

The Nats are extremely deep. I'd take their bench over the Dodgers bench any day of the week. I mean Dodgers bench according to BR is Logan Forsythe, Enrique Hernandez, Austin Barnes, and Kyle Farmer. Just Lind, Kendrick, and Drew blow that away. Dusty would be able to make a lot more moves than Roberts.

Love how the dodgers are 18 (!!!) up and there's still a conversation about which team is deeper and (presumably) better.

Dodgers starting lineup is deeper. But I'd take the Nationals Bench over the Dodgers Bench.

(08-14-2017 07:44 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  Love how the dodgers are 18 (!!!) up and there's still a conversation about which team is deeper and (presumably) better.

I never should have complimented the Nats.

(08-14-2017 08:06 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Dodgers starting lineup is deeper. But I'd take the Nationals Bench over the Dodgers Bench.

I should keep my keyboard shut, but I think the Dodgers depth is revealed even more on the 40 man roster than the 25.

And of course all of that is arm waving. Nats are the only team to take a series from the Dodgers since the end of May - they match up really well. And by the next time LA sees them in September, playoff spots and maybe even titles will likely be clinched and the games won't mean much so we won't learn anything new. There will be (already is?) a crap ton of pressure on LA to get to the WS and I'm already getting nervous about it.

It's easy to brag about a team that's a million games in front during the regular season...

I can agree with you on the 40 man vs 25 man. But the fact is that in the playoffs, it's just 25 man. And the Nats Bench is really good. Rizzo has done a great job with the adds he's made. Getting Lind before the season and Kendrick at the deadline were just huge moves. Goodwin has taken advantage of Werth being out and done great. Already had Drew. The Nats bench, which used to be a huge weakness, now is a huge strength.

I do agree with you on the pressure for the Dodgers. I mean you have a chance at 116 wins. That will just resonate with pressure for them. And I'd say this. if somehow the Cubs got the wild card and not the division, and the Dodgers had to see Cubs in a best of 5- that would ramp the pressure up considerably.

(08-14-2017 09:41 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I do agree with you on the pressure for the Dodgers. I mean you have a chance at 116 wins. That will just resonate with pressure for them.

Not sure about this. Roberts is already making in-game moves that tell me he's thinking more about figuring the post-season roster than setting regular season records. (Also another reason why a deep 40 man is valuable!)

(08-14-2017 01:51 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The Nats are extremely deep. I'd take their bench over the Dodgers bench any day of the week. I mean Dodgers bench according to BR is Logan Forsythe, Enrique Hernandez, Austin Barnes, and Kyle Farmer. Just Lind, Kendrick, and Drew blow that away. Dusty would be able to make a lot more moves than Roberts.

I think it's very unlikely Farmer will be on the bench in the post season. You left off Utley. And Adrian Gonzalez is will be a platoon at 1B so he'll be on the bench a lot as well. I'm not going to argue which is better but I've got a lot of confidence in that Dodgers bench.

Fangraphs makes the case that Sale should be the current front runner for MVP. Like I had said a few weeks ago, he's not just having a great season, but rather an historic one.

But for folks that look at things not from advanced metrics, but normal metrics, he's having a great one, not a historic year. I mean right now he's 14-4 with a 2.51 ERA. That's great numbers, but Kershaw has had better ERA's in 6 of the last 7 years(and the one that Sale's ERA is better than was 2.53). The year Kershaw won the NL MVP he was 21-3 with a 1.77 ERA. THAT would transcend the traditional voters. And guess what- there are far more guys that vote based on traditional metrics than they do on advanced metrics. So unless Sale can get his ERA down far lower than 2.51, he's going to have a really difficult chance- unless everyone implodes- and that would include Trout(because if it's Sale vs Trout- Trout's lower games number won't be as big of a deal).

Arizona keeping up right now. They've had a stretch going on 4 weeks now with games with Washington, Atlanta, St Louis, Cubs, Giants, Dodgers, Cubs, and Astros. They've gone 11-12 vs those. Rockies same period gone only 10-11- with Pirates, Cards, Nats, Mets, Phillies, Indians, Marlins, and Braves.

(08-15-2017 09:23 AM)stever20 Wrote:  But for folks that look at things not from advanced metrics, but normal metrics, he's having a great one, not a historic year. I mean right now he's 14-4 with a 2.51 ERA. That's great numbers, but Kershaw has had better ERA's in 6 of the last 7 years(and the one that Sale's ERA is better than was 2.53). The year Kershaw won the NL MVP he was 21-3 with a 1.77 ERA. THAT would transcend the traditional voters. And guess what- there are far more guys that vote based on traditional metrics than they do on advanced metrics. So unless Sale can get his ERA down far lower than 2.51, he's going to have a really difficult chance- unless everyone implodes- and that would include Trout(because if it's Sale vs Trout- Trout's lower games number won't be as big of a deal).

I don't think K and B % are very advanced. Based on those simple numbers he's putting up a season for the ages. We've come back into an offensive era and yet his WHIP (not an advanced stat) leads the league at .879, which is very impressive. Also, his 2.51 ERA is coming not only in an era of increased offense, but in Fenway Park + the American League. I'm not asking voters to drill down too deeply, just take a little bit of context into consideration

but the 2 things that most voters look at 1st are ERA and Wins. 2.51 isn't great by any measure. 14 wins means he's going to be lucky to get to 20. If he's 18-6 with a 2.50 ERA he has no chance to win MVP. Like it or not, but a lot of voters feel like a pitchers #1 job is to prevent runs. It's not to accumulate k's. Like was said a few years ago, the Cy Young award isn't the Cy Whiff award.

Also, Fenway park isn't an offensive park. Just looked at ESPN's stats, and right now it's #16 in runs and #28 in homers(only Petco and AT&T are lower). Also, the league ERA for AL is 4.35, NL is 4.31. So not that huge gap that you normally see.

(08-15-2017 09:23 AM)stever20 Wrote:  But for folks that look at things not from advanced metrics, but normal metrics, he's having a great one, not a historic year. I mean right now he's 14-4 with a 2.51 ERA. That's great numbers, but Kershaw has had better ERA's in 6 of the last 7 years(and the one that Sale's ERA is better than was 2.53). The year Kershaw won the NL MVP he was 21-3 with a 1.77 ERA. THAT would transcend the traditional voters. And guess what- there are far more guys that vote based on traditional metrics than they do on advanced metrics. So unless Sale can get his ERA down far lower than 2.51, he's going to have a really difficult chance- unless everyone implodes- and that would include Trout(because if it's Sale vs Trout- Trout's lower games number won't be as big of a deal).

Has an MVP award ever been won by a non-pitcher with as few games played and plate appearances as Trout will have this season?

looking fast, Willie Stargell in 1979 had only 126 games played. 480 pa's. Had OPS+ of 139.
Trout looking like he'll have 117 games played. He's got 74 right now, with 43 to go. Already has 329 pa's so assuming 4 per game he'd have 501. His OPS right now is 211.

(08-15-2017 10:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  but the 2 things that most voters look at 1st are ERA and Wins. 2.51 isn't great by any measure. 14 wins means he's going to be lucky to get to 20. If he's 18-6 with a 2.50 ERA he has no chance to win MVP. Like it or not, but a lot of voters feel like a pitchers #1 job is to prevent runs. It's not to accumulate k's. Like was said a few years ago, the Cy Young award isn't the Cy Whiff award.

Also, Fenway park isn't an offensive park. Just looked at ESPN's stats, and right now it's #16 in runs and #28 in homers(only Petco and AT&T are lower). Also, the league ERA for AL is 4.35, NL is 4.31. So not that huge gap that you normally see.

But you keep forgetting context. The average ERA for an AL starter this season is 4.56. Last season it was 4.42. In 2015 it was 4.14. So, relative to 2015 his 2.51 ERA. The AL ERA leader in 2015 was Price at 2.45. I'd say Sale's currently blows that out of the water, wouldn't you? None of these stats are advanced, they're just accounting for the differences in era

(08-15-2017 11:29 AM)stever20 Wrote:  looking fast, Willie Stargell in 1979 had only 126 games played. 480 pa's. Had OPS+ of 139.
Trout looking like he'll have 117 games played. He's got 74 right now, with 43 to go. Already has 329 pa's so assuming 4 per game he'd have 501. His OPS right now is 211.

Except Stargell didn't win...

(08-15-2017 11:31 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 11:29 AM)stever20 Wrote:  looking fast, Willie Stargell in 1979 had only 126 games played. 480 pa's. Had OPS+ of 139.
Trout looking like he'll have 117 games played. He's got 74 right now, with 43 to go. Already has 329 pa's so assuming 4 per game he'd have 501. His OPS right now is 211.

Except Stargell didn't win...

except that he did win. he was co-mvp with Keith Hernandez.

(08-15-2017 11:30 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 10:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  but the 2 things that most voters look at 1st are ERA and Wins. 2.51 isn't great by any measure. 14 wins means he's going to be lucky to get to 20. If he's 18-6 with a 2.50 ERA he has no chance to win MVP. Like it or not, but a lot of voters feel like a pitchers #1 job is to prevent runs. It's not to accumulate k's. Like was said a few years ago, the Cy Young award isn't the Cy Whiff award.

Also, Fenway park isn't an offensive park. Just looked at ESPN's stats, and right now it's #16 in runs and #28 in homers(only Petco and AT&T are lower). Also, the league ERA for AL is 4.35, NL is 4.31. So not that huge gap that you normally see.

But you keep forgetting context. The average ERA for an AL starter this season is 4.56. Last season it was 4.42. In 2015 it was 4.14. So, relative to 2015 his 2.51 ERA. The AL ERA leader in 2015 was Price at 2.45. I'd say Sale's currently blows that out of the water, wouldn't you? None of these stats are advanced, they're just accounting for the differences in era

but do you REALLY think the Voters are going to look at things that closely? I sure as hell don't. You are saying what the voters should do. You keep on wanting them to do what they should do. But that's just not realistic.

And voters will see Kluber real close by and that will diminish Sale to some degree for MVP consideration. I just don't think voters would look at a 2.50 ERA and be blown away when they've seen Kershaw in 6 of the last 7 years much better than that(highest one in those 6 years was only 2.28). Verlander in 2011 won with a 2.40 ERA. But there again, he had 24 wins. To win MVP, you have to check off at least 1 of the traditional wins or ERA check box.

(08-15-2017 12:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 11:30 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 10:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  but the 2 things that most voters look at 1st are ERA and Wins. 2.51 isn't great by any measure. 14 wins means he's going to be lucky to get to 20. If he's 18-6 with a 2.50 ERA he has no chance to win MVP. Like it or not, but a lot of voters feel like a pitchers #1 job is to prevent runs. It's not to accumulate k's. Like was said a few years ago, the Cy Young award isn't the Cy Whiff award.

Also, Fenway park isn't an offensive park. Just looked at ESPN's stats, and right now it's #16 in runs and #28 in homers(only Petco and AT&T are lower). Also, the league ERA for AL is 4.35, NL is 4.31. So not that huge gap that you normally see.

But you keep forgetting context. The average ERA for an AL starter this season is 4.56. Last season it was 4.42. In 2015 it was 4.14. So, relative to 2015 his 2.51 ERA. The AL ERA leader in 2015 was Price at 2.45. I'd say Sale's currently blows that out of the water, wouldn't you? None of these stats are advanced, they're just accounting for the differences in era

but do you REALLY think the Voters are going to look at things that closely? I sure as hell don't. You are saying what the voters should do. You keep on wanting them to do what they should do. But that's just not realistic.

And voters will see Kluber real close by and that will diminish Sale to some degree for MVP consideration. I just don't think voters would look at a 2.50 ERA and be blown away when they've seen Kershaw in 6 of the last 7 years much better than that(highest one in those 6 years was only 2.28). Verlander in 2011 won with a 2.40 ERA. But there again, he had 24 wins. To win MVP, you have to check off at least 1 of the traditional wins or ERA check box.

firstly, i never said he will win MVP, just that I think he should. But overall I do think today's voters are slightly better informed and more reasonable than they used to be. Mostly because many obsolete writers lost their voting privileges. Also, I feel like grassroots internet campaigns hold greater sway than ever. Look at Jonah Keri's crusade to get Tim Raines into the HOF