Alright, last award, the big one: M. V. P.
Now, before I get into this, I want to preface it with something. I love stats. I really do. I like looking them up and examining them.
It used to be RBIs and Wins. Nowadays I'm working on learning newer ones that better explore and explain the game. I'm working on learning different kinds of Sabermetrics, figuring them out. I know I'm late to the game, but I'm getting there. I really like WAR.
All that being said, I'm going to work away from the stat books for this one.
And why not, it's all meaningless opinion anyway.
On a pretty mediocre 2010 Dodger team, there were still a few standouts. Kershaw, as well as Kuroda and Billingsley were a great three man pitching rotation. Hong-Chih Kuo had one of the best seasons for a reliever in recent memory. Rafael Furcal, when healthy, was an excellent addition on offense and defense.
All these men would be worthy picks for MVP of this team, but I really got to go with my gut (ugh) on this one.
So, the winner is...
Jamey Carroll.
Maybe you agree. Maybe you don't. (Carroll's WAR was 2.4 this year, 6th on the team in case you were wondering) But here's where I'm coming from.
When Carroll was signed this previous offseason, I was pretty blasé about it. Then, we added Ronnie Belliard, and I started wondering what the point of having both players on the roster would be. I wasn't really comfortable with the whole setup, and frankly, I was thinking: "We have Belliard, why do we need Carroll?"
Either way, the season began. In the first month, Carroll made sporadic appearances, coming in for defense, starting here and there at 2nd base or shortstop. Then Furcal got hurt.
Next thing you know, Carroll was starting everyday at shortstop. Then Furcal came back. And Carroll slipped back into the spot starter role. He made starts at shortstop, 2nd, and 3rd base this time. This utility role continued until early August, when Furcal was hurt again.
And Carroll stepped right back into the shortstop role. Then September rolls around. Furcal is back. Some kids are up. Carroll goes back into the utility/spot starter role.
I know I went on too long with that, but the point I'm making is, Carroll filled a lot of roles this year (including playing a little left field) and he never complained. He just did his job and he did it well. He filled in when he was needed, or he sat on the bench when he wasn't. And over this whole time, he still posted a .379 OBP, good for first on the team (minimum 300 plate appearances).
And look how David Eckstein trembles beneath him.
So, for being that guy, Jamey Carroll is your "J's Dodger Blog 2010 MVP"
Big awards time, the tension is palpable...
The nominees are:
Hiroki Kuroda - The old guy showed he still had some stuff left in the old guy tank. Kuroda made 31 starts in 2010, posting a 3.31 ERA in 196.1 innings. He struck out 159 batters while walking just 48. He had 21 quality starts, including one where he carried a no-hitter into the 8th inning against the Phillies.
Chad Billingsley - I suppose Billingsley might have been a candidate for Comeback Player of the Year except I don't really feel like his 2009 was that bad. Either way, his 2010 was good stuff. 31 starts, 3.57 ERA over 191.2 innings. He struck out 171 to just 69 walks, had 18 quality starts, and pitched the second complete game shutout of his career.
Clayton Kershaw - The 22 year old pitched 204.1 innings, posting a 2.91 ERA over that span. He struck out 212 batters, had 23 quality starts, and picked up the first complete game shutout of his career.
And the winner is...
Everyone!
Alright, not everyone, but before I announce the winner, I want to give all three nominees props. Looking back at the stats, I was surprised by how good our top three pitchers were this season. I mean, just solid work from all three men. So, really, props to all three, but there can only be one winner, and that person is...
Clayton Kershaw for the second year in a row.
He had the 12th best ERA in all of baseball and was 7th in strikeouts per nine innings. And striking out 200+ batters in a season is flatout impressive.
For all that, he's the winner of the "J's Dodger Blog 2010 Cy Young" award.
I'm doing some more consolidating of the offseason awards I hand out.
Today, I'm cutting out the Gold Glove, mainly because fielding is hard to judge and checking out the UZR leaderboards on the Dodgers, I'm seeing Reed Johnson at number one, which seems acceptable except for how small the sample size is. Then, at number two, you have Casey Blake, which greatly surprised me.
So, I guess Casey Blake gets the Gold Glove award, but again, hard to judge.
Ok then. Rookie of the Year, another award with not a whole bunch of viable candidates.
Six players made their debuts this year: Carlos Monasterios, Russ Mitchell, Jon Link, John Lindsey, Kenley Jansen, and John Ely.
Russ Mitchell came up in September and didn't get a whole lot of experience. Jon Link got just 8.2 innings worth of work in.
You have to give John Lindsey an honorable mention for finally making it to the show but the poor guy got just twelve at-bats before breaking his hand. At least he got a base hit.
I give credit to Monasterios for jumping from the low minors and sticking the whole year on a major league roster. He had a couple of good moments, and was admirable for his ability to work out of the bullpen and make spot starts on short notice.
Unfortunately, not all of his 88.1 innings were of the highest quality. For example, he posted a 2.20 ERA in 28.2 innings in April and May, which was great. Then he posted a 5.43 ERA from June until the end of the season, which was not as great. Overall, he finished the season with a 4.38 ERA, which is pretty good for a guy who hadn't even sniffed the minors before this year.
That leaves us with our last two candidates: Ely and Jansen. This is actually pretty tough for me.
Jansen was fantastic. 0.67 ERA in 27 innings. 41 strikeouts to just 15 walks.
On the other hand, because Ely struggled through his last nine appearances (8.18 ERA in 44 IP) and raised his overall ERA on the season to 5.49, it makes it easy to forget that he was great through his first nine. After getting called up, Ely posted a 3.38 ERA in 56 innings through nine games, striking out 41 to 13 walks.
So, again, tough decision.
But I got to give it to Ely.
Taking nothing away from Jansen, because I thoroughly enjoyed watching him pitch this year and I think he's got a very bright future, but, at least for me, his 27 innings pitched can't trump the fact that John Ely was fourth on the list of Games Started for pitchers this year or that Ely racked up nine quality starts in his rookie campaign.
There's a lot of value in that, and as such, John Ely wins the "J's Dodger Blog 2010 Rookie of the Year" award.
Alright, I'm gonna jump into these awards with the Reliever of the Year. Historically (all of two years), I've started with Comeback Player of the Year.
This year though, not a whole lot to go on. If it means anything, Jay Gibbons. And he had all of 80 plate appearances this season, so, there you go.
...and provided Jeter-esque Gold Glove defense in left.
On the other hand, whatever the opposite of Comeback Player of the Year is, there were a handful of candidates for that.
Anyway, let's talk Reliever of the Year.
It's Hong-Chih Kuo.
Yeah, I'm not screwing around.
Well, I mean, I started this blog post with the intent of naming a bunch of candidates and their qualifications but, uh, looking at the stats and refreshing my memory of this season I realized what a miserable bullpen we had this year.
Kuo was pretty much the one bright spot. 60 innings of 1.20 ERA baseball.
So, for that, he wins the "J's Dodger Blog 2010 Reliever of the Year."
I wasn't even in offseason mode yet, and look at the Dodgers, jumping in with a splash. (Small splash? Medium sized splash.)
The Dodgers re-upped with Ted Lilly, signing him to a three year deal. This news is a little bit bittersweet for me. Will Ted Lilly be good next year (definition of good being 25+ starts, about 4.00 ERA)? Yeah, probably.
But this deal immediately makes me thing of the Casey Blake deal: three years for a guy in his mid-30s who is beginning to show signs of decline. Sure, we got a decent offensive year out of Blake in 2009 (122 OPS+), but by the second year in the deal (2010, 99 OPS+), we were already starting to regret it. The third year (if Mattingly is smart) will have us paying Casey Blake $5.25 million to be a platoon(/bench?) player.
Which brings me back to Lilly. Obviously, there's no guarantee that Lilly will take the Casey Blake route of decline but it wouldn't shock me. Weird, but trends seem to show that players get worse, not better as they age.
I'm won't be surprised if we're regretting this deal by half-way through the second year.
We also don't know the monetary details of the contract yet. Ted Lilly was going to be one of the top pitchers on the free agent market this offseason. I'm worried about what the Dodgers offered him to not go into said market.
If it's too expensive, we might be looking at a guy who (in an ideal baseball world) is a 4th starter as our big free agent signing this offseason.
Still, our entire starting rotation at this point was comprised of Clayton Kershaw and Chad Billingsley, so being able to pencil in Ted Lilly for somewhere around 30 starts and 180-200 innings of about 4.00 ERA pitching is still a plus.
Just as long as you remember that pluses come in many sizes.
UPDATE: Lilly gets 3 years and $33 million. It's a lot, or, at least, more than I'd hoped. There's a couple ways to look at this. I'm sure on the open market, Lilly gets more than that (though I'm not sure too much more, I'm thinking maybe $12 million) so the Dodgers, in a way, got Lilly for cheap.
On the other hand, flash forward to a couple years from now, when Ted Lilly is still getting paid $11 million and possibly not producing as much. Suddenly, things aren't looking so cheap anymore.
Anyway, point is, next year we'll have Lilly in our rotation and be paying him $11 million. It's more than I hoped, but still better than I expected.
... so it's a plus.
Again, size of said plus to be determined.
Great week for the Dodgers to go on a winning streak. 5-1. Seriously Dodgers?
Dodgers finish the season 80-82, tied with Florida and the Angels. They'll have either the 12th, 13th, or 14th pick in the draft next year.
Eh. Whatever.
Honestly, I'm just glad this is all over. It's been a long, mostly painful season.
I honestly don't have much to add. Bring on the offseason already, even though I'm pretty sure this offseason is going to be just as painful as this actual season was.
I'll probably start working on the offseason awards soon, but for now I'm tired.
Sigh.
We're almost there. This long, winding death-march to mediocrity ends in a week.
I'm in a weird place with the Dodgers right now. I'll be honest, I haven't really been watching many games these past few weeks, at least not actively. I'll have the game on in the background with the sound down while I do other stuff or I'll check the score every now and then, but I can't seem to just sit down and watch them.
It's probably because I don't want the Dodgers to win. I'll explain. Being a fan, thinking with my heart, I couldn't really ever say "I want the Dodgers to lose." But, thinking about it logically, the best thing for the team is for them to do badly this last week.
I'm looking at it like this: coming into today, the Dodgers were in the middle of a pack of teams with similar records. You have the Milwaukee Brewers on one end, who at 73-82 would pick 9th in the Draft next year. On the other end, you have the Oakland A's, who at 77-77 would pick 15th in the Draft. The Dodgers, coming into Sunday at 75-80, would pick 11th.
Here's where I start to have a problem. What good, at all, does it to for the team to beat the Arizona Diamondbacks in the four games, including today, that we play against them? It's not as if we receive some kind of prize for finishing the season at .500 or finishing above a handful of other teams.
In fact, it's detrimental to us.
Some people might talk about playing for pride or something similar. I reject that notion. How much pride can someone really get from winning a meaningless game against a team like the Diamondbacks? They've been dead in the water since June. Really, Andre Ethier is going to go home this offseason, think back to the disappointment of this season, but cheer up when he remembers win #76 against the hapless D-backs?
Look, I'm not saying we should tank. I don't like the idea of intentionally losing.
What I'm saying is, I haven't been able to watch games the last couple weeks because, in a way, I'm rooting against the Dodgers. I'm sitting there thinking something like: I want a well pitched game that the Dodgers lose 2-1 because Reed Johnson loses a ball in the lights. Or let George Sherrill pitch more and see what happens. Do well, but not well enough to actually win these last 7 games.
The great equalizer.
So... that's where I'm at. There's not a whole lot else to add about this week because it was really just another blah week in a lost season.
I did realize one thing, though. If you are a Pirates fan and you run a real quality blog about them, I give you all the credit in the world.
The Pirates lost their 100th game this week. They've been a losing team longer than the internet has been around (the popular version that we know today). At the very least, the Pirates being a bad team predates the idea of blogs, for sure.
So, again, credit to Pirates bloggers. It's hard to be a fan of team and watch as they continuously lose, even more so to try and write interesting things about that team on a consistent basis.
I mean, this is the first time since I've started this blog that the Dodgers have had a losing season, and look, I'm spending my week recaps saying things like: "Yeah! I'm glad we're losing!"
Anyway, one more week of this nonsense and then we hop into what will probably be a long, and most likely painfully inactive offseason.
I can't wait.
And look how David Eckstein trembles beneath him.
