What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Liriano (1 Viewer)

Funny how if there were a first half Cy Young, he would win, yet he wasn't good enough to make the all-star game.

I can't imagine that has ever happened before.

 
Funny how if there were a first half Cy Young, he would win,
O RLY?Do you know who Jonathan Papelbon is?There may (or may not) be others, but I don't see him winning it over Papelbon, for one. At the very least, you certainly can't just throw out that assumption as fact.
 
Funny how if there were a first half Cy Young, he would win,
O RLY?Do you know who Jonathan Papelbon is?

There may (or may not) be others, but I don't see him winning it over Papelbon, for one. At the very least, you certainly can't just throw out that assumption as fact.
I'd like to see the win/share numbers on these two. Has to be really close.
 
Funny how if there were a first half Cy Young, he would win,
O RLY?Do you know who Jonathan Papelbon is?

There may (or may not) be others, but I don't see him winning it over Papelbon, for one. At the very least, you certainly can't just throw out that assumption as fact.
I'd like to see the win/share numbers on these two. Has to be really close.
The most recent that I could find has Liriano at 13 Total WS and Papelbon at 12.Papelbon has the advantage...why? Because he plays for Boston, plain and simple. Don't get me wrong, the kid is AWESOME! But gimme Liriano 7 days a week and x2 on Sundays...and it's not even close. Liriano has the chance to be the best pitcher in MLB for the next 5-7 years. The kid is simply amazing. Minnesota has the best 1-2 punch in baseball. Plain and simple. And I think Santana is the "2" on the 1-2 punch too. No other team is even close to those two.

eta: winshares are from July 2nd, btw.

-fe

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's no way Papelbon would even be in this conversation if he played for the Devil Rays.
:goodposting:
If the discussion is 1st half Cy Young then yes Papelbon is in the discussion. But if it's who would you rather have. Then no he's not in the discussion.
I dunno. Given the recent history of closers as Cy Young winners (2 in the last 15 years), it seems like what's most important isn't that the closer has a fantastic year, but that no starting pitcher distinguishes himself with a stellar year. And just for the sake of argument I'm defining stellar as 20+ wins w/ a sub 3.00 ERA. This is what happened in the years Gagne and Eckersley won. They also compiled 50+ saves in their seasons, not an easy feat. Papelbon is currently on pace to do that, but he needs some horses to stumble if he wants to win the Cy Young because there's a quite a few pitchers on their ways to stellar seasons (Liriano, Santana, Halladay, etc.)However, I actually would consider Papelbon in the conversation for MVP simply because I don't know many players who mean more to their team than Papelbon. His worth is purely circumstantial of course (i.e. he's not nearly as valuable with the same stats on the Devil Rays), but the MVP award is pretty circumstantial.

There's absolutely no way a pitcher will ever win the MVP with without also winning the Cy Young, but whatever I personally think he's as valuable to the Red Sox as any other player is to his respective team.

 
There's no way Papelbon would even be in this conversation if he played for the Devil Rays.
But Liriano would be? :rolleyes:
Yes. Considering that Liriano is doing what he's doing on a small market team and is in this conversation, I would say that he'd still be in this conversation if he were on another small market team.On the other hand, I think a lot of the hype that surrounds Papelbon exists not only because he plays for a large market team, but that he plays for a large market team that has really struggled at the closer position for a long long time. I mean is there any better way to get positive press than to be the young gun savior for arguably the most obsessed-over team in baseball?

 
I dunno. Given the recent history of closers as Cy Young winners (2 in the last 15 years), it seems like what's most important isn't that the closer has a fantastic year, but that no starting pitcher distinguishes himself with a stellar year. And just for the sake of argument I'm defining stellar as 20+ wins w/ a sub 3.00 ERA. This is what happened in the years Gagne and Eckersley won. They also compiled 50+ saves in their seasons, not an easy feat. Papelbon is currently on pace to do that, but he needs some horses to stumble if he wants to win the Cy Young because there's a quite a few pitchers on their ways to stellar seasons (Liriano, Santana, Halladay, etc.)

However, I actually would consider Papelbon in the conversation for MVP simply because I don't know many players who mean more to their team than Papelbon. His worth is purely circumstantial of course (i.e. he's not nearly as valuable with the same stats on the Devil Rays), but the MVP award is pretty circumstantial.

There's absolutely no way a pitcher will ever win the MVP with without also winning the Cy Young, but whatever I personally think he's as valuable to the Red Sox as any other player is to his respective team.
You've made it abundantly clear that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you're talking about.Eck had a 0.61 ERA for the season. Gagne saved 55 games in 55 opportunities.

No, nothing "fantastic" about those seasons - clearly, they only won because no starters distinguished themselves. :rolleyes:

 
Yes. Considering that Liriano is doing what he's doing on a small market team and is in this conversation, I would say that he'd still be in this conversation if he were on another small market team.
Yeah, it doesn't matter that Tampa is 38-50 and Minnesota is 47-38. Because they're both small market teams. :rolleyes:
On the other hand, I think a lot of the hype that surrounds Papelbon exists not only because he plays for a large market team, but that he plays for a large market team that has really struggled at the closer position for a long long time. I mean is there any better way to get positive press than to be the young gun savior for arguably the most obsessed-over team in baseball?
Right, Boston has struggled at closer for a "long, long time." It's been at least 2004 since the Sox had a reliable closer. :rolleyes:
 
I dunno. Given the recent history of closers as Cy Young winners (2 in the last 15 years), it seems like what's most important isn't that the closer has a fantastic year, but that no starting pitcher distinguishes himself with a stellar year. And just for the sake of argument I'm defining stellar as 20+ wins w/ a sub 3.00 ERA. This is what happened in the years Gagne and Eckersley won. They also compiled 50+ saves in their seasons, not an easy feat. Papelbon is currently on pace to do that, but he needs some horses to stumble if he wants to win the Cy Young because there's a quite a few pitchers on their ways to stellar seasons (Liriano, Santana, Halladay, etc.)

However, I actually would consider Papelbon in the conversation for MVP simply because I don't know many players who mean more to their team than Papelbon. His worth is purely circumstantial of course (i.e. he's not nearly as valuable with the same stats on the Devil Rays), but the MVP award is pretty circumstantial.

There's absolutely no way a pitcher will ever win the MVP with without also winning the Cy Young, but whatever I personally think he's as valuable to the Red Sox as any other player is to his respective team.
You've made it abundantly clear that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you're talking about.Eck had a 0.61 ERA for the season. Gagne saved 55 games in 55 opportunities.

No, nothing "fantastic" about those seasons - clearly, they only won because no starters distinguished themselves. :rolleyes:
Actually Eck's was 1.91. Then what about Rivera's season last year? 0.87 ERA? Who'd the Cy Young go to? Colon with his 3.48 ERA but 21 wins. That's hardly a stellar season but it just shows how much weight is given to starting pitchers when it comes to Cy Young voting.Or what about Rivera again in 2003? He had 53 saves and a 1.94 ERA! How is that different from Eck's 51 saves and 1.91 ERA? Unfortunately Santana put up 20 wins and a sub 3.00 ERA that season. In fact Rivera wasn't even 2nd. He was third behind Schilling who had 21 wins and a 3.00+ ERA.

Like I said, closers need more than fantastic season to win the Cy Young. They need a lot of help. It's just not in the cards for them.

 
Yes. Considering that Liriano is doing what he's doing on a small market team and is in this conversation, I would say that he'd still be in this conversation if he were on another small market team.
Yeah, it doesn't matter that Tampa is 38-50 and Minnesota is 47-38. Because they're both small market teams. :rolleyes:
On the other hand, I think a lot of the hype that surrounds Papelbon exists not only because he plays for a large market team, but that he plays for a large market team that has really struggled at the closer position for a long long time. I mean is there any better way to get positive press than to be the young gun savior for arguably the most obsessed-over team in baseball?
Right, Boston has struggled at closer for a "long, long time." It's been at least 2004 since the Sox had a reliable closer. :rolleyes:
Liriano's 10-1. If he were on the Devil Rays, do you think they'd have a few more wins? I do. Yeah that closer was definitely reliable. I mean look at him now, solid as a rock. Papelbon's not hyped because people think he can do it for one year. Papelbon's hyped because he's young and people think he can do this for 15 years.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's no way Papelbon would even be in this conversation if he played for the Devil Rays.
:goodposting:
If the discussion is 1st half Cy Young then yes Papelbon is in the discussion. But if it's who would you rather have. Then no he's not in the discussion.
Right. No discussion whatsoever. Who would even consider the kid with the 0.41 ERA? :rolleyes:
If Papelbon can put up phenom numbers as a starter then there will be a discussion. Until then there is not.
 
There's no way Papelbon would even be in this conversation if he played for the Devil Rays.
:goodposting:
If the discussion is 1st half Cy Young then yes Papelbon is in the discussion. But if it's who would you rather have. Then no he's not in the discussion.
Right. No discussion whatsoever. Who would even consider the kid with the 0.41 ERA? :rolleyes:
Can't believe I'm going to argue against a Red Sox guy, but...The problem is that Papelbon is essentially no different from BJ Ryan.

 
Yeah that closer was definitely reliable. I mean look at him now
Uhhh, are you kidding me? Using a present day valuation of a player to describe how he did two years ago? Most of your other points were valid, but this is ridiculous
 
Give me a good SP over a good RP any day of the year. Palpebon (like Rivera and Gagne) is nothing more than a failed SP who has been converted. HE has good stuff........but only for 1 inning.

 
Liriano has a WPA of 238.7 (highest starting pitcher on his team, but their reliever, Joe Nathan has a WPA of 289.7)

Papelbon has a WPA of 381.4 (highest relieving pitcher on his team, highest starter for the sox is Schilling with a WPA of 120.9)

http://www.fangraphs.com/

A couple of others to throw out there...

This is for ALL of MLB

Relievers..

Papelbon 381.4

Jenks 344

BJ Ryan 336

Hoffman 301

Nathan 290

Starters..

Webb 329

Schmidt 290

Bonderman 283

Oswalt 258

Carpenter 240

Liriano 239

 
Last edited by a moderator:
article on WPA - don't get me wrong I think it is slanted towards relievers, the metric was introduced as a way of evaluating relievers.

...If you were to track an entire season in this manner, you would have a Win Contribution metric that is more accurate than Win Shares, because it is based on how much each event actually contributed to the team's wins. In a way, WPA is the ultimate baseball statistic. And in a way, it is not.

Like Win Shares, WPA is not a good predictive statistic because it's not necessarily a good representation of a player's true talent. If a player hits a home run in the ninth inning of a 1-0 game, he is credited with more WPA points than if he hits a home run in the first inning of a 1-0 game. The talent is the ability to hit the home run; when it happens in a game is something that is pretty random. When you are thinking of acquiring a player for your fantasy team, you should rely more on the traditional sabermetric stats, like Linear Weights, Runs Created, DIPS, etc. etc....
 
Give me a good SP over a good RP any day of the year.  Palpebon (like Rivera and Gagne) is nothing more than a failed SP who has been converted. HE has good stuff........but only for 1 inning.
This is wrong on so many levels. Paplebon volunteered to pitch however the team wanted to use him (starter, long reliever, closer, setup man, righthanded specialist, swingman, etc.). The team wanted him to be a starter (and still do). But Foulke got hurt and was ineffective. No one else really has shown the ability to close at the moment. The team STILL is considering using him as a starter anyway and trying Craig Hansen at closer (who has been a closer his minor league career). Paplebon never failed as a SP and will likely return to being a SP.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Give me a good SP over a good RP any day of the year.  Palpebon (like Rivera and Gagne) is nothing more than a failed SP who has been converted. HE has good stuff........but only for 1 inning.
This is wrong on so many levels. Paplebon volunteered to pitch however the team wanted to use him (starter, long reliever, closer, setup man, righthanded specialist, swingman, etc.). The team wanted him to be a starter (and still do). But Foulke got hurt and was ineffective. No one else really has shown the ability to close at the moment. The team STILL is considering using him as a starter anyway and trying Craig Hansen at closer (who has been a closer his minor league career). Paplebon never failed as a SP and will likely return to being a SP.
Perhaps, but his original point remains true as any GM on earth would take a good SP over a good RP.
 
Funny how if there were a first half Cy Young, he would win,
O RLY?Do you know who Jonathan Papelbon is?

There may (or may not) be others, but I don't see him winning it over Papelbon, for one. At the very least, you certainly can't just throw out that assumption as fact.
Yeah, I've heard of him. He's having an above average year. Doesn't matter though. If they had first half CY Young, Liriano would win it hands down. Sorry, but no reliever would ever beat out a 10-1 starter with an ERA under 2.00. It just wouldn't happen.
 
Give me a good SP over a good RP any day of the year.  Palpebon (like Rivera and Gagne) is nothing more than a failed SP who has been converted. HE has good stuff........but only for 1 inning.
This is wrong on so many levels. Paplebon volunteered to pitch however the team wanted to use him (starter, long reliever, closer, setup man, righthanded specialist, swingman, etc.). The team wanted him to be a starter (and still do). But Foulke got hurt and was ineffective. No one else really has shown the ability to close at the moment. The team STILL is considering using him as a starter anyway and trying Craig Hansen at closer (who has been a closer his minor league career). Paplebon never failed as a SP and will likely return to being a SP.
Perhaps, but his original point remains true as any GM on earth would take a good SP over a good RP.
My point was that Papblebon didn't fail at anything and was effectively labelled as a retread thrown into the bullpen.Of course a team would rather have a guy that throws 3 to 4 times as many strong innings than a guy that many times only gets 50-60 IP.

In terms of the Cy Young Award, however, I do think that a great closer should be considered if his net effect was dramatic. THe Red Sox last year and this year had a lot of trouble holding on to leads at the end of games and Paplebon has now been able to shut the door very consistently. Without him, I suspect the Sox would have a lot fewer wins to this point.

Rivera has done it for so long that even with a season with a great ERA and a ton of saves he went somewhat unnoticed. That's the price of success, I guess, when people EXPECT you do do well.

IMO, 20 wins is harder to get than 40 saves (unless your team spots you 7 runs a game when you start).

 
Funny how if there were a first half Cy Young, he would win, yet he wasn't good enough to make the all-star game.

I can't imagine that has ever happened before.
Enlighten us on the last 'first half Cy Young' winner. Was that back in '69 when the Cubs were the 'first half World Series' champion?
 
Funny how if there were a first half Cy Young, he would win, yet he wasn't good enough to make the all-star game.

I can't imagine that has ever happened before.
Enlighten us on the last 'first half Cy Young' winner. Was that back in '69 when the Cubs were the 'first half World Series' champion?
:goodposting: OMG LOL That is so funny. Last year probably would have been Roy Halladay.

 
Give me a good SP over a good RP any day of the year.  Palpebon (like Rivera and Gagne) is nothing more than a failed SP who has been converted. HE has good stuff........but only for 1 inning.
This is wrong on so many levels. Paplebon volunteered to pitch however the team wanted to use him (starter, long reliever, closer, setup man, righthanded specialist, swingman, etc.). The team wanted him to be a starter (and still do). But Foulke got hurt and was ineffective. No one else really has shown the ability to close at the moment. The team STILL is considering using him as a starter anyway and trying Craig Hansen at closer (who has been a closer his minor league career). Paplebon never failed as a SP and will likely return to being a SP.
I retract the Papelbon as a failure as a starter comment. However, give me Papelbon as a successful starter or Liriano as a successful starter over Papelbon as a successful closer. A "closer" is one of the most ovverrated positions in any sport. Just about any pitcher with one great pitch can come in the game for one inning, with noone on base and record three outs... especially with a cushion of 2 runs or more.
 
Give me a good SP over a good RP any day of the year. Palpebon (like Rivera and Gagne) is nothing more than a failed SP who has been converted. HE has good stuff........but only for 1 inning.
This is wrong on so many levels. Paplebon volunteered to pitch however the team wanted to use him (starter, long reliever, closer, setup man, righthanded specialist, swingman, etc.). The team wanted him to be a starter (and still do). But Foulke got hurt and was ineffective. No one else really has shown the ability to close at the moment. The team STILL is considering using him as a starter anyway and trying Craig Hansen at closer (who has been a closer his minor league career). Paplebon never failed as a SP and will likely return to being a SP.
I retract the Papelbon as a failure as a starter comment. However, give me Papelbon as a successful starter or Liriano as a successful starter over Papelbon as a successful closer. A "closer" is one of the most ovverrated positions in any sport. Just about any pitcher with one great pitch can come in the game for one inning, with noone on base and record three outs... especially with a cushion of 2 runs or more.
How about this, imagine that these two are on the same team. Who would be the Cy Young? Liriano hands down.In fact this type of situation has actually happened before, with Santana winning over Joe Nathan and Roger Clemens winning over Rivera.

 
Give me a good SP over a good RP any day of the year. Palpebon (like Rivera and Gagne) is nothing more than a failed SP who has been converted. HE has good stuff........but only for 1 inning.
This is wrong on so many levels. Paplebon volunteered to pitch however the team wanted to use him (starter, long reliever, closer, setup man, righthanded specialist, swingman, etc.). The team wanted him to be a starter (and still do). But Foulke got hurt and was ineffective. No one else really has shown the ability to close at the moment. The team STILL is considering using him as a starter anyway and trying Craig Hansen at closer (who has been a closer his minor league career). Paplebon never failed as a SP and will likely return to being a SP.
I retract the Papelbon as a failure as a starter comment. However, give me Papelbon as a successful starter or Liriano as a successful starter over Papelbon as a successful closer. A "closer" is one of the most ovverrated positions in any sport. Just about any pitcher with one great pitch can come in the game for one inning, with noone on base and record three outs... especially with a cushion of 2 runs or more.
You don't even need to be good at all to be a closer and get a high amount of saves.The save is the most over rated stat in baseball.

See:

Todd Jones

Brad Lidge

Jason Isringhausen

Derrick Turnbow

Just to name a few.

 
You don't even need to be good at all

See:

Brad Lidge
Give me a break. He's had a bad season this year, but dude has some of the best stuff in baseball. Terrible example.
 
You don't even need to be good at all

See:

Brad Lidge
Give me a break. He's had a bad season this year, but dude has some of the best stuff in baseball. Terrible example.
He's done as a closer. He's the new Byung Hyun Kim and I predicted this would happen after the playoff debacle last year.
 
You don't even need to be good at all

See:

Brad Lidge
Give me a break. He's had a bad season this year, but dude has some of the best stuff in baseball. Terrible example.
He's done as a closer. He's the new Byung Hyun Kim and I predicted this would happen after the playoff debacle last year.
He's still got something like 57 ks in 41 innings and 22 walks, he's not done as anything.
 
You don't even need to be good at all

See:

Brad Lidge
Give me a break. He's had a bad season this year, but dude has some of the best stuff in baseball. Terrible example.
He's done as a closer. He's the new Byung Hyun Kim and I predicted this would happen after the playoff debacle last year.
How is it that you watch so much baseball, but are wrong on absolutely everything?
 
Just to be clear, then, there is nothing that Papelbon (or any reliever) could have done to be considered as Cy Young by most of the posters here?

 
You don't even need to be good at all

See:

Brad Lidge
Give me a break. He's had a bad season this year, but dude has some of the best stuff in baseball. Terrible example.
He's done as a closer. He's the new Byung Hyun Kim and I predicted this would happen after the playoff debacle last year.
How is it that you watch so much baseball, but are wrong on absolutely everything?
:confused: After watching him collapse last year I predicted he would be horrible this year like Kim. So far that has happened. How am I wrong?
 
Just to be clear, then, there is nothing that Papelbon (or any reliever) could have done to be considered as Cy Young by most of the posters here?
If there are no stand out starters and a closer has an unbelievable year, I'd support it (ie Gagne a couple years ago)
 
You don't even need to be good at all

See:

Brad Lidge
Give me a break. He's had a bad season this year, but dude has some of the best stuff in baseball. Terrible example.
He's done as a closer. He's the new Byung Hyun Kim and I predicted this would happen after the playoff debacle last year.
He's still got something like 57 ks in 41 innings and 22 walks, he's not done as anything.
I never said he didnt have outstanding stuff. But his collapse is mental just like Kim and just like Mark Wohlers. Both pitchers never recovered and I predict Lidge will never recover as well.
 
Just to be clear, then, there is nothing that Papelbon (or any reliever) could have done to be considered as Cy Young by most of the posters here?
If there are no stand out starters and a closer has an unbelievable year, I'd support it (ie Gagne a couple years ago)
Correct, and in this case, when a starter has an ERA under 2.00, then not a chance.
 
You don't even need to be good at all

See:

Brad Lidge
Give me a break. He's had a bad season this year, but dude has some of the best stuff in baseball. Terrible example.
He's done as a closer. He's the new Byung Hyun Kim and I predicted this would happen after the playoff debacle last year.
He's still got something like 57 ks in 41 innings and 22 walks, he's not done as anything.
I never said he didnt have outstanding stuff. But his collapse is mental just like Kim and just like Mark Wohlers. Both pitchers never recovered and I predict Lidge will never recover as well.
Neither of those guys ever came back and put up the k/bb/ip numbers that lidge has this year. I'd say that given his entire body of work in the bigs, this season's ERA is more of an abberation that anything.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top