John Lackey Comeback POY

[AnotherLevel55]

Doesn't matter how he missed his time, point is he missed it. Berkman won while playing 3/4 season the year before. So Colon should definitely be consider while playing 3/4 season last year.

 

[AnotherLevel55]

IMO it should be between Colon and Longoria, but who knows with these biased voters, Lackey will take it with a 10-13 record is hilarious.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I'm not saying he was hurt, but he was mediocre/injured for 7 years after being on of the best pitchers in baseball since he came to the league.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Colon was very good last year and pretty good with the Yankees 2 years ago. He's been "back".

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

IMO it should be between Colon and Longoria, but who knows with these biased voters, Lackey will take it with a 10-13 record is hilarious.

Well, ignoring that you're dead wrong about Colon, you really think a pitcher's record should have anything to do with whether or not he wins a Comeback Player Award? That's hilarious.

I'm not really seeing what Longoria is coming back from either. Yes, he only played 74 games last year, but who didn't expect him to bounce back? He's in the prime of his career.

If you've ever bothered to look at the history of the award, it's given to players who either miss significant time, such as a whole season, or come back from a career or life-threatening injury. It's also occasionally been given to older, established players who had seen their numbers decline and had their careers written off, only for them to bouce back and return to form unexpectedly.

Neither Colon nor Longoria missed significant time or had career threatening injuries. And Colon doesn't mean the latter qualification because as I said, he's been "back" for three years now.

 

[AnotherLevel55]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Colon was very good last year and pretty good with the Yankees 2 years ago. He's been "back".

Some players' definition of "back" is different than others. The last 2 years he very much active, but no way near as "back" as the type of pitcher he was when he won the cy young in 05' and the years before that.

And to say he was good with the Yanks is hilarious, you call a 8-10 record with a 4.00 era and 1.29 whip good? Last year he was ok too, not good. This year he was great, had flashes of his dominant years, had career high in era, made back to the All Star game. This year he came "back".

 

[StanMarsh51]

Some players' definition of "back" is different than others. The last 2 years he very much active, but no way near as "back" as the type of pitcher he was when he won the cy young in 05' and the years before that.

And to say he was good with the Yanks is hilarious, you call a 8-10 record with a 4.00 era and 1.29 whip good? Last year he was ok too, not good. This year he was great, had flashes of his dominant years, had career high in era, made back to the All Star game. This year he came "back".

Record, really? That's one of the 3 most important stats to you?

Last year if he had enough innings to qualify, his AL ranks would've been:
11th in ERA
11th in WHIP
2nd in K/BB
12th in OPSA

That's pretty good, wouldn't you agree?

And a bit of topic, but we all know his 2005 Cy was a farce...he had no business winning over Santana.

 

[AnotherLevel55]

Well, ignoring that you're dead wrong about Colon, you really think a pitcher's record should have anything to do with whether or not he wins a Comeback Player Award? That's hilarious.

I'm not really seeing what Longoria is coming back from either. Yes, he only played 74 games last year, but who didn't expect him to bounce back? He's in the prime of his career.

If you've ever bothered to look at the history of the award, it's given to players who either miss significant time, such as a whole season, or come back from a career or life-threatening injury. It's also occasionally been given to older, established players who had seen their numbers decline and had their careers written off, only for them to bouce back and return to form unexpectedly.

Neither Colon nor Longoria missed significant time or had career threatening injuries. And Colon doesn't mean the latter qualification because as I said, he's been "back" for three years now.

Just because we expect him to come back, doesn't mean he didn't and shouldn't be recognize for it.

The second part is really funny that you mention that since that's exactly where Colon fits in and you're saying he shouldn't even be consider. In 13', that's when his career finally came back to form, not in these ok last 2 seasons.

 

[steveringo]

Some players' definition of "back" is different than others. The last 2 years he very much active, but no way near as "back" as the type of pitcher he was when he won the cy young in 05' and the years before that.

And to say he was good with the Yanks is hilarious, you call a 8-10 record with a 4.00 era and 1.29 whip good? Last year he was ok too, not good. This year he was great, had flashes of his dominant years, had career high in era, made back to the All Star game. This year he came "back".

For future reference: You lose some credibitily when you use W/L to evaluate starting pitchers.

 

[steveringo]

How can a player really win the CBPY award while retired? Mo could've won if he hadn't retired after the season, that means he's not actually back.

For more reference: You also lose credibility when you write things that don't make any sense.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Some players' definition of "back" is different than others. The last 2 years he very much active, but no way near as "back" as the type of pitcher he was when he won the cy young in 05' and the years before that.

And to say he was good with the Yanks is hilarious, you call a 8-10 record with a 4.00 era and 1.29 whip good? Last year he was ok too, not good. This year he was great, had flashes of his dominant years, had career high in era, made back to the All Star game. This year he came "back".

First off, you're putting an absurd amount of weight on record, considering you think John Lackey was mediocre this year b/c he went 10-9. We all know that's a team stat. You're not convincing anyone for example that Felix Hernandez wasn't great the year he went 13-12, or that Russ Ortiz was some stud when he won 20 games.

Secondly, Colon had an above average (for an AL starter) ERA and WHIP in 2011 with the Yankees, and that's before taking into account that the AL East was probably the best hitting division in the league that year (every AL East team finished 8th or better in runs in the AL), and that Yankee Stadium was rated an extremely hitter friendly park that year.


So yea, smarther's right....you can certainly argue Colon was pretty good in 2011.

 

[AnotherLevel55]

Record, really? That's one of the 3 most important stats to you?

Last year if he had enough innings to qualify, his AL ranks would've been:
11th in ERA
11th in WHIP
2nd in K/BB
12th in OPSA

That's pretty good, wouldn't you agree?

And a bit of topic, but we all know his 2005 Cy was a farce...he had no business winning over Santana.

Exactly, not enough innings to qualify. That actually helps my argument.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Exactly, not enough innings to qualify. That actually helps my argument.

Because of a PED suspension.

 

[AnotherLevel55]

For future reference: You lose some credibitily when you use W/L to evaluate starting pitchers.

You lose even more credibility when you choose to just read the parts you want and discard the rest.

 

[AnotherLevel55]

First off, you're putting an absurd amount of weight on record, considering you think John Lackey was mediocre this year b/c he went 10-9. We all know that's a team stat. You're not convincing anyone for example that Felix Hernandez wasn't great the year he went 13-12, or that Russ Ortiz was some stud when he won 20 games.

Secondly, Colon had an above average (for an AL starter) ERA and WHIP in 2011 with the Yankees, and that's before taking into account that the AL East was probably the best hitting division in the league that year (every AL East team finished 8th or better in runs in the AL), and that Yankee Stadium was rated an extremely hitter friendly park that year.


So yea, smarther's right....you can certainly argue Colon was pretty good in 2011.

More like 10-13, and it's not that I think it's the most important stat for a pitcher, but for people to say it's not important is just stupid.

You can have all the stats in you favor, ERA, WHIP, IP, etc.. If you can't keep your team in position to win games , all that goes all the window. I actually rather have a pitcher that struggles to keep teams from scoring and has to escape jams everytime, but his team scores runs for and wins ballgames, than a pitcher that throws a complete game everytime and loses 0-1.

 

[StanMarsh51]

More like 10-13, and it's not that I think it's the most important stat for a pitcher, but for people to say it's not important is just stupid.

You can have all the stats in you favor, ERA, WHIP, IP, etc.. If you can't keep your team in position to win games , all that goes all the window. I actually rather have a pitcher that struggles to keep teams from scoring and has to escape jams everytime, but his team scores runs for and wins ballgames, than a pitcher that throws a complete game everytime and loses 0-1.

So essentially, you'll take Matt Moore's 2012 over Clayton Kershaw's.

I'll be sure to ignore your posts from now on since I now know this is how you think.

 

[AnotherLevel55]

Because of a PED suspension.

So was he a PED user or was he a player that came "back" the last 2 years? You can't have both.

So far of this year, there's no PED allegations.

 

[AnotherLevel55]

So essentially, you'll take Matt Moore's 2012 over Clayton Kershaw's.

I'll be sure to ignore your posts from now on since I now know this is how you think.

If Matt Moore will win me more games, then why would I take Kershaw? If my team won't scvore for him, IK rather take the guy my team always score for. I'll win games and you can keep drooling over Kershaw's stats.

 

[StanMarsh51]

If Matt Moore will win me more games, then why would I take Kershaw? If my team won't scvore for him, IK rather take the guy my team always score for. I'll win games and you can keep drooling over Kershaw's stats.

Isn't it likely Kershaw opposes better pitchers than Matt Moore?

If one pitcher consistently goes up against the opposition's #1/#2 starters, and the other pitcher consistently goes up against the opposition's #4/#5 starters, don't you think that has an effect on the run support and also record? It's a lot easier to beat Phil Hughes than Max Scherzer, no?

It's not as if the Dodgers don't like Kershaw and just say "we won't score runs for him" to piss him off.

Why do you think Smoltz and Glavine had better record than Maddux some years? Is it indicative that they pitched better, or was Maddux generally matching up against the better starters?

 

[AnotherLevel55]

Isn't it likely Kershaw opposes better pitchers than Matt Moore?

If one pitcher consistently goes up against the opposition's #1/#2 starters, and the other pitcher consistently goes up against the opposition's #4/#5 starters, don't you think that has an effect on the run support and also record? It's a lot easier to beat Phil Hughes than Max Scherzer, no?

It's not as if the Dodgers don't like Kershaw and just say "we won't score runs for him" to piss him off.

That's a good point, but there's also some great pitchers that can't keep a lead, and some ok pitchers that if you give him a lead, he won't lose it.

 

[AnotherLevel55]

Also Maddux didn't always face great pitchers while Glavine and Smoltz faced bad ones, I remember from those days not all teams had ace type pitcher leading their staff.

I think it has alot to do with confidence in getting run support. Meaning let's say Kershaw is pitching, his defenders are watching him pitch and they're thinking "man hitting is hard", then when they go up to the plate they have no confidence they hit so they struggle and Kershaw gets no runs to work with. Then a guy like Nolasco comes next and his defenders are watching him thinking "man hitting is easy", they go up with all the confidence and bust out runs, Nolasco is able then to keep the lead and wins it.