All the talk around the baseball world is around the GIBBYs. GIBBY this and GIBBY that. Baseball fans can't get enough of the GIBBYs. The Greatness in Baseball Yearly Awards have captured the heart of America like few things before it.
Or maybe this is the first time you've ever heard of them. They're awards from MLB.com that are voted on by fans and they're probably the most important awards because the fans are the ones who watch the games, and they're likely to back up their vote with actual research and logic.
what did alber do to make it on this list other than have a good game 3? hes a good player but i dont think he wins this award.. he needs to do better at the plate.. hes an hr threat but needs to work on small ball. Great glove though
That's a comment under the Player of the Year nominee list, and it really makes you think, you know? And the GIBBYs also include the only award in baseball that's given out to setup men: the Setup Man of the Year award, which is a good reminder that the BBWAA needs to create an award for setup men. There just aren't enough awards for us to internet-argue over, and setup men deserve some love too
Here would be a list of finalists for The Mike Stanton (Not That One) Award for Pitching Excellence, which is what I've already determined that the BBWAA should call the award, along with a note on why they should and should not win the award:
Why he should win:
He doesn't allow runners. Or runs. Or hits. Or walks. He's almost the perfect setup man.
Why he shouldn't win:
Well, that was all true in the regular season, but in the playoffs he was hittable. He also walked as many batters in the postseason as he did with the Rangers in the last two months of the season. If you vote on the award before the postseason, though, he's as strong of a candidate as any one else.
Why he should win: He led both leagues in holds! He also pitched more than one inning for the Nationals often, which increased his value to the team, and he led the world in the percentage of runners he stranded.
Why he shouldn't win: He allowed 11 home runs, which is quite a bit for a late-inning reliever.
Why he should win: He was one of only five pitchers since 1900 to throw more than 70 innings with an ERA below 1.00. That's insane.
Why he shouldn't win: The last guy to do it was Chris Hammond, which sort of makes the accomplishment feel a little less exclusive. Plus, relievers' ERA has a lot to do with stranded runners, and O'Flaherty had Jonny Venters and Craig Kimbrel behind him.
Why he shouldn't win: Walks. Just under a hundred of them. He averaged more than a walk every two innings.
Why he should win: He was a workhorse for the Braves, leading the league in appearances and dominating for most of the year.
Why he shouldn't win: He also pootered out down the stretch, allowing nine runs and walking 11 over his last 15 appearances. Like Robertson, he walks way too many hitters to make his manager feel comfortable.
Why he should win: He walked five batters and struck out 70. The only other reliever in history to have a K/BB ratio that good for more than 30 innings was Dennis Eckersley. There were three outings in this year's World Series where a pitcher walked as many or more batters than Romo did all season.
Why he shouldn't win: He missed some time with injury, and Bruce Bochy didn't trust him against lefties earlier in the year, often removing him after facing a single batter, which limited his innings pitched to just 48.
Why he shouldn't win: The taint of Cubs is always a good reason for someone not to win something, even if a player deserves nice things.
The winner should be: Clippard, who pitched the most innings and stranded the most runners while doing the things a reliever should do, which is striking batters out and avoiding walks
The BBWAA would vote for: Clippard, who led baseball in holds.
Maybe we shouldn't give the writers the burden of another award to think about. But The Mike Stanton (Not That One) Award for Pitching Excellence should become an official tradition, if only because there aren't enough things to argue about on the internet.