Clayton Kershaw Finishes Second in Cy Young Ballot, Kenley Finishes Fifth

Clayton Kershaw

Clayton Kershaw had a strong season in 2017. It may not have been as dominant as years prior, but it was enough for him to win another National League ERA title. Unfortunately it was not enough for him to win his fourth CY Young award. National’s ace Max Scherzer took home his second consecutive Cy Young, while Kershaw finished second.

For Scherzer it was certainly deserving. Scherzer finished with a 16-6 record, a 2.51 ERA and 268 strikeouts in 200.2 innings of work. He walked only 57, allowed just 5.7 hits per nine and posted a stingy 0.9 WHIP. Kershaw was 18-4 with a 2.31 ERA in 175 frames. Despite missing significant time because of a back injury, he also collected 202 punchouts, and walked only 30 in 27 starts.

As far as the voting, Kershaw received 3 first place votes, and 25 second place votes to give him 126 overall. Scherzer got 27 first place votes, and 3 second place votes to give him a final tally of 201. Stephen Strasburg, Scherzer’s teammate in Washington finished third place with 81 votes. Former Dodger and turncoat Zack Greinke got 51 votes for fourth place. Big man Kenley Jansen finished in fifth with 22 votes. Alex Wood finished tenth with one vote. You can take a look at the final results below.

2017 NL Cy Young

Player, Team 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Points
Max Scherzer, Nationals 27 3 201
Clayton Kershaw, Dodgers 3 25 1 1 126
Stephen Strasburg, Nationals 1 23 3 2 81
Zack Greinke, Diamondbacks 1 3 15 9 52
Kenley Jansen, Dodgers 2 5 6 22
Gio Gonzalez, Nationals 1 5 5 18
Robbie Ray, Diamondbacks 1 4 6
Jacob deGrom, Mets 2 2
Jimmy Nelson, Brewers 1 1
Alex Wood, Dodgers 1 1
Scott Andes

Scott Andes

Scott Andes: Former Co-editor of Lasorda’s Lair. Longtime writer and Dodger fanatic

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
Twitter

52 thoughts on “Clayton Kershaw Finishes Second in Cy Young Ballot, Kenley Finishes Fifth

  1. Here is my exit review for Clayton Kershaw. Again I am aware of a lot SABR stats on these guys, but I don’t want to dwell on them since a majority of blogs out there already put out a lot of SABR stats. I am just stating my own observations and recollections of these players over the course of the year, with more focus on their performance during the playoffs (where applicable), and lastly how they could help the team next year.

    Clayton Kershaw. Kershaw is the anchor of our starting rotation and likely contributed more to our W-L record than any player on the field. He wins most of the games he starts and he gives the bullpen a break. Relief pitchers lose command and velocity due to heavy use, and no matter how you look at depth, it is just not possible to carry so many bullpen arms even with the constant shuttling back and forth. The idea that you can simply have 3 pitchers pitch 3 innings each, or 5 pitchers pitching once through the rotation each, won’t work with a 25 man roster. Relievers who are used heavily during the regular season go bust in the postseason. Brandon Morrow was called up in late May and only pitched 43 regular season innings. Carl Edwards pitched 66 innings. Ken Giles averaged 67 for three years straight. The innings sneak up and pile up very quickly on a reliever, especially in the postseason.

    Some may point to the fact that the Dodgers seemed to play their best when Kershaw is not in the lineup, or that Kershaw is a burden on the Dodgers in the postseason. If that argument is going to be made, then I would suggest someone look at our record in the postseason by non-Kershaw pitchers. It is ugly. It is one thing to say that Kershaw should get the blame for a bad pitch, a bad inning, or a bad game, but that is very different from saying that he is a burden to the team. Some players get the blame precisely because they are the most productive players on the team, while others never get the blame because they don’t see the field unless there are no other viable alternatives. It is ok to blame a star for failing and also at the same time recognize that player’s immense value. Let’s make that clear and maybe, maybe, the discussions can be less repetitive.

    But at some point during the 2017 season I stopped believing in Kershaw. Whether it was the back, or having to deal with longer rest and inconsistent routines, Kershaw did not look dominant to me anymore. He will be dominant from time to time, but there was a big difference. Before, I saw that all Kershaw needed to have a good outing was his great slider and decent fastball and curveball. When he has either two of those three pitches working, lookout – he was unhittable. Starting in 2017, I felt that Kershaw needed all 3 of his pitches going good to have a dominant outing. Just two of the three makes it workmanlike, and having all 3 just decent leads to a bad outing. And I saw this wearing on Kershaw – he kept wanting those great outings back. The look on his face in the postseason just had a different vibe. But he never changed or even started to change his approach. I stopped believe in Kershaw because of that. For me, the magnificent Clayton Kershaw, with his talent and his pay situation, needs to rediscover himself more as a great control pitcher and take risks with his curveball even if it is not going great. Pitch the game the way the game is playing out, and to hell with the sub 3 ERA and the sub 1.0 WHIP. Some of this will be on the coaches and the catchers, but more than anything I think Kershaw needs to recognize that he was not born with an arm like Verlander. He needs to become Lester, or even 2015 Cole Hamels. I am not sure Kershaw knows this, but I feel that the magnificent Kershaw, who has already set the bar so high, really needs to pivot and not worry about the bar anymore. And if he does that, then he may discover to his surprise that he will have become a better pitcher.

    1. YF

      Nice job!

      Of course we were talking about the Post season, so anything I said about Kershaw was about the post season!

      And how anyone can say I said he wasn’t a good pitcher, because I was just being honest about his performance in the post season, were trying to make something out of what I said, that was just not there!

      I had noticed even in the regular season Kershaw doesn’t pitch backward much, so when he gets behind on the count with a hitter, he often will throw a fastball first.

      Sometimes he will throw his slider but he does not throw his curve much at all, in these situations.

      And because of this, Kershaw becomes predictable, and when Kershaw is in the post season and he gets in trouble, he does this same thing, but it is magnified more in the post season.

      What is ironic about Kershaw is he has very good command, but when he gets in trouble especially in the post season, instead of slowing down, and commanding his pitches, he becomes a thrower, and he doesn’t have a big fastball, like YF said, so he gets hit.

      And Kershaw doesn’t like his catcher to go out there, and slow him down, but that is what Kershaw needs to happen, when he gets in these tough situations.

      After Kershaw walked those first two hitters, he should have took his time, and made a good pitch, especially a good first pitch, because the Astro hitters, were jumping on all our pitcher’s first pitches, especially since there was two runners on base.

      But instead of slowing down and being more deliberate, Kershaw rushed back to the pitching plate, and threw his first pitch, on the inside corner of the plate to Gurriel, and Gurriel easily pulled that pitch into the seats.

      I thought Roberts should have pulled Kershaw after he walked that first hitter, in that other inning Kershaw was having trouble in, but I understand why Roberts didn’t want to do that, because there was two outs, and he had to use his bullpen to much, and especially Maeda, in the game before, because of Darvish was not able to pitch even two innings.

      But Kershaw wasn’t the only pitcher on our team, that Astros hitters jumped on, on the first pitch.

  2. Kershaw lost the award because he was on the DL for 6 weeks plus. Had he been pitching his win total and strike out total would have been a lot higher. But Scherzer had a great season. I thought that Strasburg’s second half was going to push him over the top. Kershaw was not as dominant as before, and he gave up a ton of home runs. But pretty much every pitcher in the league was bitten by that bug, that’s why I thought that Brandon Morrow not giving up a single homer in the regular season was such an outstanding stat. Kersh won 18 regular season games, had he been pitching those 6 weeks he would have had at least 4-6 more wins.

  3. “I would suggest someone look at our record in the postseason by non-Kershaw pitchers. It is ugly.”

    Well said, and exactly the reason I suggested yesterday if this team is to win a World Series it has has to win in Kershaw’s starts. In his 27 starts this year the Dodgers win 23, including 16 in a row. If he’s 1-1 in a 7 game series, the other starters, the ugly ones, have to be 3-2. Asking the ugly to go 3-2 against the best teams in baseball is a huge ask.

    I’m inclined to agree with your take on the bullpen being worn down by short inning starters. Arguments against length by starters have been made here, mostly from the FAZophants. A while back, when talking about Hill only going 110 innings somebody here, forget who, said “why is so important a starter go 200 innings”. Well, OK, maybe not 200, but 110? if we pay a guy starter money, don’t we want him to start 30 and average 6 IP? To me that doesn’t sound like a lot to ask of a starter. But apparently these days it is. That being the case, and watching as our overworked bullpen peters out, I would suggest carrying extra pitchers, and I would also suggest it’s time to expand rosters. If not, an extra bullpen arm will likely mean less bench depth and your utility guy gets to play somewhere a few innings nearly every day. It’s a dreadfully long season, especially for those teams that make the playoffs. If you are not going to expand the season roster, can you at least expand the post season roster? And, while on the subject, can we be given a reasonable explanation why rosters can’t be 26 instead of 25? Thank you.

    1. Badger

      I think you and everyone else here, that have insisted that our starters should pitch deeper into games then five innings, are right.

      Because there has to be a balance of innings, between our starters, and our relievers, or our pitchers, especially the bullpen pitchers, will be over tired, at the end of the season, let alone, the post season.

      And in both of these last two post seasons, our relievers have been over tired, but they have been expected to pitch even more in the post season, where every game, is even more important.

      Our starters need continuity in there starts, so they can build off every start to get better, and to build up there endurance during the regular season, so they can pitch effectively longer then five innings, in the post season.

      If our starters can pitch an average of six innings in most of there starts, our relievers, will not be over used, in the regular season, so they will be more effective, in the post season, because more is expected from all our pitchers, in the post season.

      And our starters want to pitch more then five innings most of the time, anyways.

    2. Badger
      Kershaw was 1-0 in the WS. The Dodgers could and should have won game 5. Kershaw allowed 4 hits in his 4.2 innings. He did not lose game 5. They had plenty of chances to win that game even though Kershaw did not pitch well in the 5th which was the only inning he pitched bad in the whole W.S. Some of the reason he did not go deeper into games during the year is because of ROBERTS who pulled him more than once with his pitch count in the 80s and 90s. He could have easily pitched more innings. No one wants to talk about game 1 which was a Kershaw gem Everybody wants to kiss off Kershaw. BS Gimme a break!!

      1. He didn’t lose?!

        4.2, 6 earned, and you focus on the fact he didn’t lose? Didn’t he give up the lead – twice?

        He wasn’t the losing pitcher. He pitched like one, but 12 runs saved his ass. Glass half full. I like that about you package.

        The point I was making is simply this team has needed their ace to pitch like an ace every game he was out there. Others have over the years. Not him.

        I’m not kissing anybody off. I’m a Kershaw fan. I think he’s great. But that doesn’t change my opinion on what has happened more than once in the post season. If next year he wins his 2 games, yippee! If he does, I predict we win the series. And if he doesn’t?……..

        1. Badger,
          He allowed the first homerun and then proceeded to walk 2 and that was it. He had one bad inning. Making it sound worse is wrong. The Dodgers could have won that game in spite of that bad inning. What if they had? Would you still bad mouth him? I think not. By the way, Kershaw did not allow 12 runs as you state. 6 runs is how many he allowed. Period. He did not give up the lead twice. Call it as it is. I get it, you think he has to be perfect.

          1. I didn’t state he gave up 12 runs. Read it again.

            His ERA for that game was 11.6. Making it sound better than that is just wrong. You’re making excuses for how that happened. I’m simply stating that it DID happen. If he pitches like an ace, we blow them out in that game.

            I may be wrong about him giving up a lead twice. We had a lead twice – a 4-0 lead, they tied it in the 4th. We went ahead in the 5th, then they tied it again in the inning he was knocked out of the game, but Maeda gave up the tying run. Whatever. We scored 12 runs in a game he started and it wasn’t enough. I don’t understand why you are defending that performance so vehemently. He sucked!

      2. Package

        How can you say Kershaw only pitched bad in the fifth inning?

        In the fourth inning, Kershaw walked a hitter, he gave up two hits, and then he threw a ball, right into Gurriel’s wheel house, and allowed Gurriel, to easily pull the pitch, into the seats.

        And this was after the team, had given Kershaw, a four run lead, and he loss that lead, in one inning, in the fourth.

        And after that inning, at the top of the fifth, Cody came up to bat, and hit a ball into the seats, to give us another three one lead.

        Kershaw was given another chance to go out there and pitch the fifth, to protect the three run lead, that Cody had just given the team!

        But intead of Kershaw coming in, and having a quick shut down inning, after Kershaw got two outs, he proceeded to walk the next two hitters, and by doing that, he allowed the trying run, to come up to the plate, once again.

        And by doing that, he put the team down again, because Maeda had to hurry out of the bullpen, to relieve Kershaw in the fifth, and try to get the third out, but Maeda allowed Altuve to hit the ball out, and tie the game again.

        That inning is on Kershaw!

        Kershaw didn’t pitch well, in the fourth, and he didn’t pitch well in the fifth, and because of that, he didn’t even finish the fifth inning, he was pulled.

        And Kershaw was allowed to pitch deeper into games, then any other starter on the team.

        When a pitcher gets all of these superlatives said about them, like Kershaw does, and gets all these awards, and gets paid more then any pitcher in baseball, and is the highest paid player on the team, more is expected from them, and that is why more is expected from Kershaw!

    3. Also you have to remember these quote ugly pitchers, don’t have all these superlatives thrown out there about them, like Kershaw does.

      And these other pitchers, are not being paid the astronomical number, that Kershaw is being paid, so the same is not expected from them, that is expected from Kershaw.

      Badger is right in short seven game series, Kershaw can’t let a six run lead get away, and Kenley can’t blow a save, because every game in a short series, is far to important.

      Kershaw and Kenley, are suppose to be our best pitchers, and that is why they are being paid accordingly, and that is why more is expected front them.

  4. kershaw is not the pitcher he use to be . he is now on his down swing.. yes he still has good number ..but he is not what he once was..there is a point in a pitcher life that it starts to turn the other way…and that is now, most wont agree with me ..but that is what i think

    1. I’ve said a couple times that we’ve likely seen the best of Kershaw. But, as the sabermetricians are want to point out, he can give us our money’s worth. At $35.571429 million (damm, that’s a lot of cheddar, and a weird number) divided by $8mm per WAR point (up from 7.5) he would need to put up 4.44642862 WAR to earn the cheese. I think he could do that with 25-27 selective starts. If he can go 6.1 QS innings 25 times it limits his burden and increases the possibility he can reach 4.5 WAR (I rounded up so I didn’t have to print 4.44642862 again) By the way, 27 starts would be what your #1 starter would get in a 6 man rotation. I still think to stretch him out 3 more years at that same $35.571429mm figure it would be wise to limit his starts. He had 27 this year (up from 21 in ’16) and put up 4.6 WAR. I think the days of 33 starts for this player are long in the past.

      Where am I wrong in my figuring?

      1. Also, I heard from my lead research analyst and he told me the math says the roster increase should be to 28. I trust his judgment.

    2. Yes Jerry, I agree. I think others will come to agree too. But being on the downside means nothing for a great pitcher like Kershaw. He can pitch slower and smarter. He can do it, and he has to do it, if he wants to win the big one. I just hate to see such a great guy and a great pitcher butt his head against the wall at the end of every season. Just my opinion.

  5. Interesting to read stats like these:

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/gibsobo01.shtml

    Look at the complete games and innings pitched. All done in a 4 man rotation. Also look at the post season stats. All in a World Series. 9 games pitched, 81 innings. 0.889 WHIP. He pitched in 3 games every time he was there. He was 7-2 in 9 starts.

    You see that’s the greatness we old farts got used to. None of today’s pitchers will ever do that. Kershaw? Not even close.

    1. True.

      Different game. Completely different.

      Would be so interesting to see how Gibson fared in the modern game.

      But, both players are the greatest of their generation.

      1. “Completely different.”

        How so? Different number of games? Different number of innings per game? Different distances from the rubber to the plate?

        The strike zone is different. Ballparks field of play are much smaller. The mound was a few inches taller maybe. My research analyst tells me the 5 man rotation came in somewhere in the middle of Gibson’s career, so I got that wrong. My bad. But it’s the same game Babe Ruth played. I think the biggest difference may be the athletes as a whole are bigger, faster, stronger – but they sure as hell are not tougher. The pitchers with over 3800 innings pitched will not have anybody from today’s game in it. Sabathia is the current leader. He’s at 3300 so he could make it to 3600. That would put him in the top 60. (In a Dodger uniform maybe?) But studs like Glavine, Maddux, Clemens, Ryan, Carlton, Gibson, Morris, Palmer, Roberts, Wynn, Spahn, Sutton – long list of players I’ve seen in person over the years – not going to happen. Kershaw at 1935 might get to 3500, which would put him in the top 70 all time. But, with his back, over 500 innings might take a while. As I proposed, I’d like to see him throw around 170 quality innings per year – unless he leaves, then I don’t care, let him throw over 200.

        Different game? I guess that’s one way to interpret it. I played from ‘55 to 2004. Same game as far as I could tell. Last pro game I saw, 2016, looked like the same game. Like I said, the guys are huge now, but they play the same game I did.

        1. Totally different game in the following ways:

          Skill / athletic level of players.

          Off-season workouts.

          Pre-game scouting. In game analytics.

          The juiced ball. The technology behind the bats.

          Pitch framing, calling, predicting.

          1. Modern Medicine.

            Modern diets.

            A healthier standard of living.

            Easier travel.

            Higher salaries. Lack of 2nd jobs.

            Different player development models.

          2. Well I won’t argue that point Bluto. You’re right about all that. But I still think players were tougher then. They had to be. No guaranteed multi million contracts then.

          3. That said, those are all peripherals of a billion dollar corporate enterprise. If I were to coach again, I wouldn’t change a thing. Baseball is baseball. As a hitter, control YOUR strike zone, as a pitcher, control THE strike zone. On defense, work the fundamentals, move on every pitch, take the outs they give you and steal one whenever you can.

          4. Really agree.

            One big difference:
            No Free Agency then!

            I wonder if one would argue that the lack of player movement led to this perceived “toughness.” Players had to play hurt and rush back from injury, because they were at the owners’ beck and call.

            Not sure I believe it, but I also don’t believe much in “tougher” players back then…

    2. Pitchers back then learned how to get batters out when they’re tired and worn out. Now they just try to throw harder and make that perfect pitch even the third time through the lineup.

      I remember how our guys used to pitch in the late innings. On the edges, in the dirt, walk the top hitter, etc., etc.

  6. And isn’t it interesting that guys like Wood, Hill, McCullers, Morton, etc. end up having better outings against all that great new way of hitting? I submit the modern pitching coaches have gone away from teaching how to pitch and battle hitters. Pitch to pitch is the new mantra and that’s leading to shorter outings and, ironically to many but not to me, more injuries (which are stress related).

    1. The question isn’t so much whether the pitchers of yesteryear could handle today’s game—it’s whether today’s pitchers could handle the rigors of pitching back in the day. 40 starts? 340 innings pitched? 700 career starts? 5,000 career innings?

      1. Answer is no. The current pitchers will all have WHiPs of under 1 but blow out their arms after 3-5 seasons. They will blow away the opposing number 8 hitter with the nastiest slider you’ve ever seen (because the number 8 hitter can’t deal with it) but throw the same pitch the next inning to the number three hitter who can handle the same pitch and he wallops it with people on. I think it’s not a question of toughness it’s a question of stupid.

  7. It would be great if we go to 26 or 27 man roster in the postseason. I don’t think that’s coming soon though. And I don’t think our starting pitchers are in shape to average 6 innings per start for the season. Every contender is going to get two closer types and then cobble the rest of the bullpen together (Cubs appear to be determined to outbid us for Morrow and nothing out of the Astros yet but you bet they’re interested as well). This worked for Kansas City and to some extent the Cubs (but people forget both teams had their top starters average 6 plus innings). These days the only contender that can do that is the Nationals – and if they get that second closer type, look out as I think they win it all. For all the other teams who can’t get 6 innings, or who prefer to only go through the lineup twice, I think the bullpen can and will melt down. So I think one way to gain an advantage is to have a mini-rotation of 3 middle relievers that regularly goes 2 innings, or once through the lineup, one game every 3 days. Why three days? Because these middle relievers are generally non-elite starter types and used to having throw days between starts, and I think they will adjust more easily. 3 middle relievers, two leverage guys, a LOOGY and a ROOGY for matchups. That’s a 7 man bullpen.

    1. Good theory.

      Yes, the Devenski role could be replicated. Not sure to three of them, I’m not sure there’s the talent to support that.

      But I could see Stripling, Stewart and Maeda (if his contract can be re-drawn) all filling that “swing” role.

  8. I believe there will come a time when the roster is expanded to 26. They have talked about it a lot and I am sure the MLBPA would love 30 more slots for players. And one last thing. I know Stanton had a great year. I just do not think a player on a team that finishes under .500, 10 games behind the division leader is the MVP. I know Andre Dawson won with the Cubs when they finished in last place, but how can you be the most valuable player when your team does not even make the playoffs? Just my opinion.

  9. “I think it’s not a question of toughness it’s a question of stupid.”

    Classic.

    Pitchers in general have lost the art of commanding the strike zone with change of speeds and spin. Maybe that’s why Greg Maddux isn’t an in demand pitching guru.

    Michael, I agree with your premise and it’s my opinion the MVP is the guy without whom the best team isn’t the best team. Who is that in the National League? Who carried the Dodgers? Nobody really. Stanton is MVP because of the spotlight he put on baseball. He’s a guy that people pay to see and don’t leave their seat when he’s coming to bat. 59 and 132? Great year. Miami drew 9,000 more per game on the road. Probably because of him. I have no problem with him being selected this year.

    1. That definitely makes sense. But if you go by that criteria, Cody Bellinger made the Dodgers go. They took off after he arrived and stayed in front the rest of the way. No, his year did not match Stanton’s but you could make and argument that if Bellinger is not called up, the Dodgers do not win the division. And pretty much nobody left their seats when he was up either….but I do get the point.

  10. The east coast media always change there narrative to give certain players, the MVP.

    Last year, I thought Mookie Betts should have won the MVP not Trout, because Betts had an outstanding season, both offensively and defensively, and the Red Sox went to the post season.

    But the narrative was changed that Trout should still win the MVP even though the Angels were not in a pennant race last year.

    Stanton almost hit sixty HRs this year, and that is why he won this award.

    Because he had a standout season, when it came to power numbers, and no one came close to Stanton’s power numbers this year.

    It is to bad Goldy got hurt at the end of the season, or he might have won this award this year.

    But JD Martinez did more for the Dbacks offensively in the second half, then Goldy did, because he hurt his elbow.

    I was looking at the Marlins players numbers just this last year, and Dee Gordon struck out 93 times , and only walked 25 times, that is ridiculous for a lead off hitter, especially when Gordon doesn’t hit with any power at all.

    1. Gordon’s K% was 13, which falls between above average and great. It’s true he doesn’t walk much, but he’s a .300 hitter with a 3 year OBP of .359, .305 and .341. His LD% is right at league average. He is a positive dWAR player. If he can keep that OBP around .350, with his speed on the bases I think he has real value.

      Trout has 55.2 WAR in a little over 6 years of work. He’s only 25. He’s lead MLB in OPS+ 4 times already. He will be in MVP conversations every year for a long time.

      1. Badger

        It was more about Gordon’s walk to strike out, ratio.

        And this is something he has always had a problem with, along with him not ever having a really great OBA.

        His power numbers look to low to me, to be striking out so much, and his OPS is not much over 700.

        It isn’t a knock on Trout, but Betts had very good numbers, both offensively and defensively, and he was playing in a pennant race, unlike Trout.

        I can see someone like Trout winning the award, if non of the players on a team in the pennant race, have good numbers, but Betts had really good numbers in 2016.

        And Betts is a better defensive player.

    2. I think Trout should be the MVP every year.

      He’s that good.

      Marlins would LOVE to move Gordon. Not sure what value he has given his peripherals and his contract.

          1. Bluto

            Players have a lot more pressure to perform, in a pennant race, then on a team, that is out of the race, before August or September.

            This is a MVP award, not the best player award.

            That is why Kirk Gibson won the MVP award, when he was a Dodger!

          2. Yeah, I understand what MVP stands for.

            I think Trout is the most valuable year in year out. Just look at what he contributes.

            That “pressure” narrative is silly.

      1. Gordon’s value has to measured by how many runs can score, and playing good D. If he gets on at .350 I think he can get around the bases as good as anybody. He scored 114 runs this year, 5th in MLB. He’s won a batting title (yeah, I believe I know what you think about that), he steals bases (gets caught too often) has won a SS and a GG. He really doesn’t make that much money. 3.1 WAR for $7.8mm is value. I’d sure like to see him on base more often, but at age 29, 30 in April, he is what he is. He will get raises to $10.8, $13.3, $13.8 then a buy out so I would hope he can put up the numbers to earn it. I like him. Always have.

        1. Badger

          That’s the difference!

          I have always thought he couldn’t handle the pressure in LA, so I was never
          impressed with him.

          1. Me too. Didn’t work out. In fact, in large part the Cuban investments have been very disappointing so far.

    1. $5,000,000.

      At least he drops off the books this year. Didn’t get much of a chance here. He could have used some time playing second base in the minors. Colletti screwed that up by agreeing to a contract that had a clause that did not allow an option to the minors. He and his agent, Bora$$, probably could have amended that, but they did not. I wonder if he might be back. He’s 31 this week.

      1. Badger

        That is what I was thinking, and he seems like the only Cuban the Dodgers didn’t give a chance to.

        But he is out there working for his money, even though the Dodgers have been paying him.

        And those slugging numbers, look like his AAA numbers, although his AAA average was higher.

        It is much harder to teach someone to hit, then play decent defense.

        And look at that guy the Brewers signed, from Korea, and Japanese baseball, is suppose to be better.

        1. Guerrero was Colletti’s Cuban. As was Arrueburenna. FAZ Cubans might get better treatment. Except Olivera. That one is all on FAZ. Still waiting on the others.

  11. Nothing for 12 hours. Bluto is right.

    Been thinking about what Michael said regarding Bellinger. Yep, the Dodgers took off when he arrived and went down with a whimper as he struck out 3 times and made a crucial error. The MVP of course is not about the post season. And if you research what criteria is used in the voting you will find the BBWAA does not offer a clear cut definition of what “most valuable” actually means, instead leaving the judgment to the individual voters. I think it’s reasonable to assume valuable is subjective. This award is given to the most impressive player. Stanton was, in my opinion, the most impressive player in the National League. I would have voted for him. The “best” player? Well, what would define that? Wouldn’t today’s best player be the guy who put up the highest WAR? Apparently so. In the AL that was Altuve. In the NL that was Stanton. WAR is what impresses today’s GMs and it is also what defines the best player.

    Another guy high on my list of impressive players this year was Andrelton Simmons. Would love to see him in a Dodger uniform. So would the Dodgers pitching staff. 4.17 dWAR from your shortstop? Outstanding! Nobody in either league came close to that.

  12. The thing I like about Cody and Corey, is although they are very talented players, they still work hard to get better, and they are team players.

    And I think Cody’s strike out record in the World Series, will make him even better hitter, next year.

    I was afraid Cody would come up to the majors, and have the same trouble Joc had.

    But he was adjusting almost right away, after pitchers got his number, and he does go the other way, and he is a good RBI guy.

    Cody hit in quite a few runs, with just single, so he is not always trying to hit every pitch out, especially when he has two strikes, when runners are in scoring position, like Joc has done, for three years.

    His performance in the World Series, was not what Cody did all year, and that is why I think he was trying to do to much.

    I couldn’t believe what Corey and Cody did, after they had just watched the Astro’s third baseman give away his bat, to just get Springer to third, so Springer could score easily.

    Because I thought the Astros did a text book example, of what a team needs to do to score a runs, in a very important game, where runs may be hard to come by.

    My first thought was Corey would just make sure he made contact, and got Taylor over to third, so he could score, like Springer did.

    I had saw Corey do that before, and that is why I think him being hurt, limited his swing, because he was pulling everything, and Corey usually hits the ball, where it is pitched.

    And I remember the Giant’s pitchers, pitching curves on Cody’s hands, when he first came up, and Cody adjusted on this, and that is another reason I thought Cody was just trying to do to much, in that last game.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPEG only)