Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

4 pitchers with statistical ranking in parenthesis:

Pitcher A: 15-5 (T-3), 2.56 ERA (5), 182 K's (4), 7 CG (1), 0 SO (T-22), 1.054 WHIP (2), 7.91 K/BB ratio (1)
Pitcher B: 14-7 (5), 2.71 ERA (7), 191 K's (2), 5 CG (2), 5 SO (1), 1.065 WHIP (6), 4.90 K/BB ratio (3)
Pitcher C: 17-4 (1), 3.03 ERA (11), 161 K's (T-7), 1 CG (t-17), 1 SO (T-4), 1.121 WHIP (8), 3.29 K/BB ratio (12)
Pitcher D: 16-5 (2), 2.51 ERA (3), 207 K's (1), 4 CG (3), 2 SO (2), 1.023 WHIP (1), 4.31 K/BB ratio (5)

What say ye?

I went with D.

BlueHen86 wrote:I went with D.

Same

D

Great ERA, Great WHIP, great K's, good record.

D, with A still in the running. I think A will catch D by the end of September.

Alpha.

I'm a big fan of the CG, especially in this day and age when somehow SIX innings is a freaking "quality" start.

SuperHornet wrote:Alpha.

I'm a big fan of the CG, especially in this day and age when somehow SIX innings is a freaking "quality" start.

6 innings is good enough for a quality start. A pitcher only needs to go 5 to get the W, why should they have to go 7 or 8 to get a "quality" start but only 5 to get a W?

Pitchers are being coddled, clenz. You finish what you start. That's the way basebal was played for well over 100 years until salaries got so freaking huge. Agents have too much power.

SuperHornet wrote:Pitchers are being coddled, clenz. You finish what you start. That's the way basebal was played for well over 100 years until salaries got so freaking huge. Agents have too much power.

Football players used to play without facemasks too....and with broken legs, torn acl's, broken arms, etc...

There is nothing wrong with a pitcher going 6 or 7 innings.

93henfan wrote:D, with A still in the running. I think A will catch D by the end of September.

Agreed, and C has some work to do...like a) get over 200 K's, get ERA below 3.00, and get whip below 1.10.

I wouldn't mind seeing QB facemasks go back to what Plunkett and Theismann used to wear....

SuperHornet wrote:Pitchers are being coddled, clenz. You finish what you start. That's the way basebal was played for well over 100 years until salaries got so freaking huge. Agents have too much power.

I agree with you a little here, but the game has changed. Pitchers aren't expected to go 9 innings anymore, most teams have a closer and set up man. I think a pitcher should have to go 7 innings to get a quality start, but clenz has a point too, a starter only need pitch 5 innings to get a win.

Pitcher D

clenz wrote: There is nothing wrong with a pitcher going 6 or 7 innings.

There is nothing wrong with a pitcher going 6 or 7 innings, but you need a good bullpen after than. Something teams like the Twins, who are very strick with the pitch count, don't have.

Gil Dobie wrote:

clenz wrote: There is nothing wrong with a pitcher going 6 or 7 innings.

There is nothing wrong with a pitcher going 6 or 7 innings, but you need a good bullpen after than. Something teams like the Twins, who are very strick with the pitch count, don't have.

Which kind of makes the concept of 'quality start' different from one team the next. If a team has a loaded bullpen, they might only need 6 or 7 innings from their starter. A team with a bad bullpen might need 8 or 9 innings.

I have a love-hate relationship with bullpens. While I miss the awesome Rawly Eastwick et. al., I REALLY hate seeing a gem pi$$ed down the leg when the pen blows up. Even worse is that evil thing known as the blown-save-win some closers have a penchant for pulling.

D. Great trade!

SuperHornet wrote:I have a love-hate relationship with bullpens. While I miss the awesome Rawly Eastwick et. al., I REALLY hate seeing a gem pi$$ed down the leg when the pen blows up. Even worse is that evil thing known as the blown-save-win some closers have a penchant for pulling.

Nice! It's been a while since we had a penchant sighting on the board.

D. As in ADGrizFan.

AshevilleApp wrote:D. Great trade!

Cept that's not my guy.

Ivytalk wrote:
D. As in ADGrizFan.

Actually, D got another W yesterday so he's 17-5 w/212 Ks and 2.45 ERA

CatMom wrote:Actually, D got another W yesterday so he's 17-5 w/212 Ks and 2.45 ERA

You are correct. I wonder if playing for a 4th place team will impact his chances?

Guess it didn't hurt Fernandez last year....

Unless he absolutely implodes in September, I think he's a lock for the award.

A now @ 16-5 with 191 K's and 2.47 ERA (also had a 3 RBI double tonight)

I think A & B will cancel each other out. I like Cs stats but the ERA is the killer.

CatMom wrote:A now @ 16-5 with 191 K's and 2.47 ERA (also had a 3 RBI double tonight)

I think A & B will cancel each other out. I like Cs stats but the ERA is the killer.

Well, it's coming down. Unlike Sabathia, C's ERA in August is 2.31, and he's gone 5-1.

AZGrizFan wrote:

CatMom wrote:Actually, D got another W yesterday so he's 17-5 w/212 Ks and 2.45 ERA

You are correct. I wonder if playing for a 4th place team will impact his chances?

Guess it didn't hurt Fernandez last year....

Unless he absolutely implodes in September, I think he's a lock for the award.

Fernandez didn't have someone as close to him in every number as A is to D this year. A's pitching games that matter, in a more competitive division, in a more batter friendly ballpark, than D is. A's got 5 more starts so getting to 20 wins is a definite possibility. If the numbers don't change drastically and A gets to 20 wins, I think he's going to have a second in a row Cy Young.

I have no problem giving the award to someone who isn't pitching for a team in contention (Steve Carlton's 1972 season for instance, 27 wins for a team that didn't win 60 all year, is a prime example of a just award) but with everything else being pretty much equal, as it is in this case, you go with the guy who pitched in games that mattered. King Felix won last year because his ERA was 50 points better than the next guy. That won't happen here.