July 14, 200917 yr Grienke doesn't get the respect he deserves because he plays for the Royals, just another instance of the media attention that the Northeast teams receive due to ESPN and other media outlets. Grienke was on the cover of Sports Illustrated and many pundits pick today for the AL Cy Young. He is receiving plenty of respect considering he is stuck in the Bermuda Triangle of MLB. He is just on a poorly operated team that has no shot of winning; teams that do not win do not get the same coverage.
July 14, 200917 yr Grienke was on the cover of Sports Illustrated and many pundits pick today for the AL Cy Young. He is receiving plenty of respect considering he is stuck in the Bermuda Triangle of MLB. He is just on a poorly operated team that has no shot of winning; teams that do not win do not get the same coverage. Still doesn't receive a lot of recognition. You say Josh Beckett or Halladay and a lot of people know who they are in baseball, a lot of fans probably don't know a lot about Greinke. A-Rod still received a lot of notice when he played for the Rangers.
July 14, 200917 yr What about King Felix 9-3 with an ERA under 3.He's in the running, but he hasn't been better than Greinke ...
July 14, 200917 yr How many wins would Grienke have on the Red Sox team right now. I would say 15 isn't really that much of a stretch. In his 5 losses he has a total of 9 runs scored for him. Fair point. The opposite to that argument would be what would Grienke's numbers be like if played against AL foes 19 times a season (or however many times they play against one another)? My guess is his numbers would change a bit, to say an 11-3 record and an ERA about a point worse than it is now If I am putting Beckett 1, Grienke is right there a millimeter behind and they can change positions with each start. Beckett being on a good team, and in a division race has the chance to secure a lot more big time, clutch wins than Grienke. Knocking off the Yankees the last week of the season when separated by only one game scores a lot more points with voters than getting a 4-2 victory over the Oakland A's in September to secure 4th place in the AL Central. Not necessarily fair, just the reality of the situation.
July 14, 200917 yr NL MVP: Pujols (duh) NL CY Young: Lincecum AL MVP: Joe Mauer AL CY Young: Josh Beckett This would be mine as well. The closest race IMO is AL Cy Young. Beckett, Greinke, Halladay all having great seasons thus far. I'm a big stickler, however, that if you win one of these awards (CY Young or MVP) you should be on a winning team, thus my reasoning for Beckett.
July 14, 200917 yr Author NL MVP: Pujols AL MVP: Longoria NL CY Young: Lincecum AL Cy Young: Wakefield (Wildcard)
July 14, 200917 yr Fair point. The opposite to that argument would be what would Grienke's numbers be like if played against AL foes 19 times a season (or however many times they play against one another)? My guess is his numbers would change a bit, to say an 11-3 record and an ERA about a point worse than it is now I assume you meant the AL East, and that is a valid point. The four best offensive teams in the AL, in terms of runs per game, are the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels and Rays. Here are those pitchers' numbers against those teams: Beckett ... six starts, 2-2 with a 7.55 ERA ... 33.2 IP, 45 H, 15 BB, 34 SO Halladay ... six starts, 3-2 with a 3.13 ERA ... 46 IP, 36 H, 8 BB, 43 SO Greinke ... one start, 0-1 with a 1.13 ERA ... 8 IP, 4 H, 0 BB, 5 SO Greinke lost 1-0 to the Angels on May 9. Granted, he hasn't faced the Yankees, Rays or Red Sox, but he has faced the #5 offensive team (division rival Cleveland) three times. Counting the Indians, the comparison looks like this. Beckett ... six starts, 2-2 with a 7.55 ERA ... 33.2 IP, 45 H, 15 BB, 34 SO Halladay ... seven starts, 4-2 with a 2.89 ERA ... 53 IP, 41 H, 10 BB, 50 SO Greinke ... four starts, 1-1 with a 2.04 ERA ... 26.1 IP, 24 H, 7 BB, 28 SO You can make a case that Halladay over Greinke, based on the information above, but no way for Beckett.
July 14, 200917 yr AL Cy Young: Wakefield (Wildcard)Tim Wakefield? He is, at best, the third-best starter for the Red Sox.
July 14, 200917 yr This would be mine as well. The closest race IMO is AL Cy Young. Beckett, Greinke, Halladay all having great seasons thus far. I'm a big stickler, however, that if you win one of these awards (CY Young or MVP) you should be on a winning team, thus my reasoning for Beckett.There is no doubt that Greinke and Halladay are having better seasons, so in effect, you are penalizing them because their teams aren't as good as the Red Sox.
July 14, 200917 yr Fair point. The opposite to that argument would be what would Grienke's numbers be like if played against AL foes 19 times a season (or however many times they play against one another)? My guess is his numbers would change a bit, to say an 11-3 record and an ERA about a point worse than it is now If I am putting Beckett 1, Grienke is right there a millimeter behind and they can change positions with each start. Beckett being on a good team, and in a division race has the chance to secure a lot more big time, clutch wins than Grienke. Knocking off the Yankees the last week of the season when separated by only one game scores a lot more points with voters than getting a 4-2 victory over the Oakland A's in September to secure 4th place in the AL Central. Not necessarily fair, just the reality of the situation. Bottom line ... Greinke is 10-5 for a team that is 37-51 with the #13 record in a 14-team league and on a team that has the worst offense in the AL. Greinke would certainly be facing better competition in the AL East, but if he was in Beckett's shoes he would be doing so with the best team in the AL behind him.
July 14, 200917 yr There is no doubt that Greinke and Halladay are having better seasons, so in effect, you are penalizing them because their teams aren't as good as the Red Sox. Player A 10-5 Record 2.12 ERA 129 K 21 BB Player B 11-3 Record 3.35 ERA 110 K 35 BB Player C 10-3 Record 2.85 ERA 106 K 17 BB Now, sure some may seem to stand out just a tad bit than others, but can you really say that one is not near the others, without a doubt in your mind?
July 14, 200917 yr Player A 10-5 Record 2.12 ERA 129 K 21 BB Player B 11-3 Record 3.35 ERA 110 K 35 BB Player C 10-3 Record 2.85 ERA 106 K 17 BB Now, sure some may seem to stand out just a tad bit than others, but can you really say that one is not near the others, without a doubt in your mind? Statistically, Player A is definitely better than both, and both Players A and C are clearly better than Player B. Edited July 14, 200917 yr by westsider
July 14, 200917 yr Statistically, Player A is definitely better than both, and both Players A and C are clearly better than Player B. Clearly better? Player 2 has a better record than both A and C. And is just a little behind on the other statistics.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.