SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all B-R content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing B-R blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Baseball-Reference.com ยป Sports Reference
For more from Andy and the gang, check out their new site High Heat Stats.
ShareThisPOLL: 2010 AL Cy Young award
Posted by Andy on August 19, 2010
August 19th, 2010 at 9:35 am
Funnily enough just did my awards for the 3/4 mark of the season last night. My AL CYA ballot is as follows.
1. Cliff Lee, TEX
2. Trevor Cahill, OAK
3. Jered Weaver, LAA
4. Mariano Rivera, NYY
5. Jon Lester, BOS
6. Felix Hernandez, SEA
7. Clay Buchholz, BOS
8. John Danks, CHW
9. Colby Lewis, TEX
10. Carl Pavano, MIN
August 19th, 2010 at 9:37 am
After I arranged this poll (using nominations from readers from my recent Cliff Lee post) I looked at the stats myself and thought that Lewis and Danks were two guys missing from my poll...
August 19th, 2010 at 9:41 am
You really should have innings pitched on the list of stats.
August 19th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Danks and Lewis are both having superb years right now for AL contenders. Chances are wouldn't have gotten any first place votes anyway haha, but definitely top 10 material.
August 19th, 2010 at 9:47 am
I didn't want to put too many stats on there. I think WAR is more important that IP since the more quality innings a guy pitches, the more WAR he's going to accumulate.
August 19th, 2010 at 9:48 am
It's a bit odd that despite Cliff Lee and Jon Lester having extremely close stats that Lee has 19 votes and Lester has one vote. I left my vote for Lester on bias, but he is 2nd in VORP (though I don't have Lee's combined numbers on me for that), 2nd in WAR, and anyone above him in ERA+ has appreciably fewer innings
August 19th, 2010 at 9:49 am
Andy - I don't think anyone would disagree with you on that here, but two of your other stats are highly dependent value wise on how many innings they have (I know you know this, just saying).
August 19th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Ryan--well they are SOMEWHAT dependent. I am assuming that the average reader here can easily realize that Rivera, Benoit, and Soria are relievers and therefore their ERA+s and WHIPs should be considered differently. It's true, too, to a much lesser extent for starts with different innings too, but you any voter can always check each guy's full stats before voting.
Can we at least all agree that I was right to leave off W/L record?
August 19th, 2010 at 9:55 am
I'm an innings ho when it comes down to it. I give a huge bonus to Sabathia when comparing him to Buchholz (as a Sox fan) because he has 40 more innings. It may be related, but my team has thrown out Scott Atchison and Ramon Ramirez in high value innings when Jon Lester or Clay Buchhholz (or more commonly Beckett/Lackey/Matsuzaka) can't make it to the Bard bridge.
I was more meaning that in terms of, say C.C. Sabathia v. David Price. You can infer that C.C. has more innings because his ERA+ is noticeably lower but his WAR is pretty close, but I think it's fair to say that some voters simply go by ERA(+), WHIP, W-L, or more commonplace stats that could use IP for context.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:07 am
Anyone but Carl Pavano.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:13 am
this is how we end up with seasons where the two Cy Young winners combine for 31 wins. You give us the choices without even listing their wins. What is pitching without wins (or saves)? Last year we get a 15 game winner and a 16. nonsense. WAR was invented by people who want to make Bert Blyleven look better than he ever was.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:14 am
OMG Barkfart. I am guessing you are about to get roasted by other readers.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:16 am
1968. Denny Mclain goes 31-6 and unanimous MVP and Cy Young. But finishes far behind Luis Tiant in WAR. I think it's a nonsense stat.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:17 am
"nonsense"...really? Can we at least agree that it can't be considered in a vacuum and needs context (just like Wins)?
August 19th, 2010 at 10:18 am
I know you're right, Andy (about getting ready for the flamethrowing). And even though I disagree with you on almost every topic, I really appreciate all your effort in keeping this board lively.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Andy. Regarding WAR. I've really been pouring over the WAR lists lately, and I think it rewards longevity over all else. How does Blyleven end up one spot removed from Randy Johnson? And Blyleven among the top twenty pitchers in baseball history. Gimme a break. By the way- I grew up a huge Bert Blyleven fan as a kid. And Tommy John, too.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:24 am
Cliff Lee leading the way, no big surprise. I'm blown away by the fact that Joakim Soria is comfortably in second with ~21% of the vote. I mentioned him in the other thread because I figured he was a top ten guy this year and if Rivera was going to make the poll, then Soria should get a shout-out. Never expected him to get this many votes.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:24 am
Barkfart, my problem with your argument here (and on other posts where you've commented) is that it seems to amount to "come on, how can that be right???" What are you basing your evaluation on? Bert Blyleven was an extremely good pitcher who had very bad luck--not the close-to-even luck that most pitchers with a lot of longevity end up with. He deserved a lot more wins than he actually got.
Do you have any aspect of your position that involves more than just "look and feel" as observed by you personally?
August 19th, 2010 at 10:26 am
I am concerned that the voting is being manipulated, because 50 or so votes in, Soria had zero. I think there might be ballot-stuffing going on here (which you can do if you delete cookies on your computer, I think.)
August 19th, 2010 at 10:28 am
I was just going to say how I was shocked to see Soria in 2nd place, lol.
I picked Cliff Lee based on his low WHIP, high ERA+ and WAR and you shouldn't overlook 7 CG.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Yeah, why is Soria getting so many votes? That's very suspicious. Ballot stuffing on a meaningless internet poll is really pretty pathetic.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Two things, Andy.
1. You yourself said neither wins nor WAR were stand alone stats, but you gave us WAR, and not wins, to choose our winner.
2. I don't know if you'll answer online, but I'm wondering how old you are. I'm 48. I saw Blyleven's entire career. I don't buy the "extremely good pitcher with awful bad luck" description. I'd say, "very good pitcher with legendary curveball". Go back and look at those teams year-by-year. I have. He played on some decent teams, and was only a handful of times the ace of the staff. And besides, a starting pitcher has the ability to rise above his crappy teams. Look at people like Juan Marichal.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:33 am
or fergie jenkins
August 19th, 2010 at 10:37 am
All stats need context, including WAR and W. But not to the same extent. WAR does a much better job of looking at all sorts of factors. This is not really even debatable; it's a fact regarding how the two statistics are 'calculated'. (Noting, of course, that Wins are not calculated at all.)
Your analysis of Blyleven's teams is not correct. This has been done in great detail in many publications, including this blog. They were well-below .500 for his career. (I have looked at them year-by-year as you suggest.) Playing "on some decent teams" doesn't actually measure how good his teams were nor does it mean that they were even .500 over the course of his career. DO you think that some Yankee pitchers (Andy Pettitte front and center) have gotten higher win totals by virtue of being on a powerhouse team for parts of their 15-year run? If so, why don't you believe that the opposite is possible?
This "rise above" notion is silly and not based in fact.
As for my age, all I'll say is that I have seen Blyleven pitch in person, and not in Old Timers' games
August 19th, 2010 at 10:41 am
I look at it as WAR, while not perfect is a measure of how a pitcher performed. Wins are a measure of what the score was when the pitcher left the game which is only about 50% based on how he performed.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Even less than 50% unless he's throwing complete games all the time.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:50 am
OK Andy, I'll tell you what. I will do my very best to make this the last time I clog up a thread complaining about Blyleven.
You're right. I'm a "gut-level" guy. But my complaints about the Blyleven worshippers is that you cannot go back and confer to a player what the fans, writers and his peers never did. The fans and players almost never voted him to an all-star game (and remember, on those awful teams of his where one player HAD to go, they still didn't choose him). And the baseball writers never saw fit to consider him any season awards. How can we, after his career, make him better than people at the time thought he was?
August 19th, 2010 at 10:52 am
The best pitchers give up the least runs. WAR is based on runs given up (except for closers who get a bump up for no good reason), wins are based on runs given up (by you and your bullpen) + runs scored by your offense. So WAR is much better at evaluating pitchers.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:55 am
to Mike:
I thought ERA measured runs, and adjusted for poor fielding.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:59 am
How can you keep a guy with the 5th most strikeouts and 9th most (only 3 behind the leader of non-dead ball era pitchers) shutouts out of the HOF.
August 19th, 2010 at 11:03 am
if that's the case Mike, then let's strike up the Jamie Moyer for the HOF thread. 20 mediocre years is not what the Hall was made for.
August 19th, 2010 at 11:05 am
"I thought ERA measured runs, and adjusted for poor fielding."
ERA adjusts for errors, which isn't the same as adjusting for poor fielding. A defense that has extremely poor range, even if it doesn't make a ton of errors, is going to negatively effect a pitcher's ERA.
August 19th, 2010 at 11:07 am
"You yourself said neither wins nor WAR were stand alone stats, but you gave us WAR, and not wins, to choose our winner."
Neither a lemon nor a watermelon is a lime. But if you asked me for a lime and all I had was lemon and watermelon I'd be best served giving you the lemon, since it is much closer to what you asked for. Neither would fit the bill entirely, but one would be a HELL of a lot closer.
Just because two things are both imperfect does not mean they are equally imperfect or equidistant from perfection.
August 19th, 2010 at 11:08 am
"How can we, after his career, make him better than people at the time thought he was?"
Maybe people at the time were wrong?
August 19th, 2010 at 11:11 am
I guess we should kick Don Sutton out of the HOF too, eh barkfart?
August 19th, 2010 at 11:16 am
well, Zim, since you bring it up, I didn't think sutton deserved it.
and BSK, you should be the author of the Moyer thread then. Only the passing of time, and the invention of exotic stats that make Blyleven better than Koufax, are necessary to dress him up for the Hall.
August 19th, 2010 at 11:20 am
"if that's the case Mike, then let's strike up the Jamie Moyer for the HOF thread. 20 mediocre years is not what the Hall was made for."
Well Blyleven was not mediocre, he was a top 5 pitcher in his league ~10 years and deserved at least 1 and maybe 2 Cy Young awards. Again, 5th in Ks, 9th in shutouts. Moyer: 36th in Ks, t-597 in shutouts.
August 19th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Andy said: "nonsense"...really? Can we at least agree that it can't be considered in a vacuum and needs context (just like Wins)?
BSK said: "Neither a lemon nor a watermelon is a lime. But if you asked me for a lime and all I had was lemon and watermelon I'd be best served giving you the lemon, since it is much closer to what you asked for"
I fully agree with both statements above, but I also think some of what Barkfart says in #27 has merit too. Blyleven should be in the Hall, but I also get why many consider him a borderliner. I don't think he's a slam dunk, but he's safely in in my book. As for the WAR, WAR gives context, but it also deletes lots of context --I know most here think it deletes the context that it should delete so it can eliminate biases and perceptions. I don't completely agree with that. With that said, it would have also been nice to see the Wins listed above, but I understand that this site is much more saber-friendly than most!
August 19th, 2010 at 11:21 am
"Regarding WAR. I've really been pouring over the WAR lists lately, and I think it rewards longevity over all else. How does Blyleven end up one spot removed from Randy Johnson? And Blyleven among the top twenty pitchers in baseball history."
Every counting stat rewards longevity. WAR doesn't tell us that Blyleven was a better pitcher than Randy Johnson; it just tells us that he had slightly more career value. But obviously at their respective peaks, Johnson was the greater pitcher--and WAR will tell us that, if you look at their WAR totals in their best seasons.
Looking at wins would suggest that Jack Morris is better than Pedro Martinez, or Jamie Moyer better than John Smoltz. WAR is not a perfect stat--no stat is--but wins is much, much worse.
August 19th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Well Blyleven will most certainly be joining Sutton, Marichal, Jenkins and Koufax in Cooperstown this winter.
Back to the poll: One more reason for Cliff Lee to get my vote. Totally shattering the all-time record for K/BB. 14.7! Are you kidding me? Just blowing away Saberhagen's 1994 mark of 11.0. He throws nothing but strikes and still AL batters can't hit him.
August 19th, 2010 at 11:26 am
I voted Lester by the way.
August 19th, 2010 at 11:29 am
If you just need Blyleven to reach 300 wins he had:
2 CG losses where he allowed 0 ER, 10 CG losses where he allowed 1 ER, 2 no decisions where he pitched 10 innings and allowed 0 ER, 6 no decisions where he pitched 9 innings allowing 1 ER. He also had 11 CG losses allowing 2 ER including 1 11 inning outing. That is a total of 31 games that an above average offense should ahve won for him, assuming he got only half of those that would make his record more like 300 - 240 (.555 W-L%)
August 19th, 2010 at 11:30 am
This is what my predictor spit out, its a simple formula that includes ERA, WAR, and Wins. Redundant yes but most stats are (HR and AVG aren't mutually exclusive)
hard to take Lee seriously as a favorite, being only on pace for 14 Ws
1. David Price
2. Jon Lester
3. CC Sabathia
4. Clay Buchholz
5. Trevor Cahill
6. Carl Pavano
7. Mariano Rivera
8. Jered Weaver
9. Rafael Soriano
10. John Danks
11. Joakim Soria
12. Cliff Lee
August 19th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Seems about right #43 except I do have Lee much higher up since some of his saberstats are freakishly good. I agree though, hard to give it to a guy that's on pace for 14 wins --a few more big wins and then maybe. He could still win the Cy.
August 19th, 2010 at 11:46 am
In defense of Andy Pettitte, yes his win totals are inflated, but his argument even for statheads should be getting stronger (he's often the guy today that's used against wins being a good metric) :
Pettitte, if he can come back from this injury and get a few more wins this year and come back for another year so he gets to ~260 wins, 3300 IP and a WAR of 54-56 (at 50.2 now without postseason IP, but hurt during a great season) I'd vote him in too --at that point he'll also likely have 20+ postseason wins in addition to 5-6 championships and 8-9 WS appearances.
Even for statheads, If he pitches another year (a 17th season) and gets to 250+ wins and ~3300IP, then just add his 250-300 postseason IP and 5 WAR points (don't even bother with the wins even though that would likely put him at ~280) and his WAR would be 59-60 in 3600IP. Add another year and postseason IP to his WPA and it would be somewhere b/w 27-29 (23.2 now without postseason IP) -- ERA+ would be 115-118 (117 now).
August 19th, 2010 at 11:53 am
With regards to Lee, I'm a bit perplexed as to what to make of his innings. If you look at his innings total, you'll see that he is about even with most of these guys. So, he missed a chunk of the season, but made up for it with longer starts. Obviously, not all innings are created equal... but is there a general rule as to whether 33 starts at 7IP/G or 28 starts at 8IP/G is better? Does WAR take that into account?
August 19th, 2010 at 11:53 am
just for the record, I voted for Rivera. There's a bunch of unsung pitchers on that list having great years, but the Yankees can spend $5oo million and they'd still be vulnerable without him. That's how us old-timer, pre-WAR baseball fans roll.
August 19th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
ESPN's Predictor has Papelbon and Neftali Feliz 9 and 10 respectively, and Mo outside the top 10
brilliant
August 19th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
It's too early to tell. Once the season ends, I'd like at it more carefully than I would if I just voted now based on the numbers in the poll.
August 19th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
I'm a little surprised King Felix isn't getting a little more love. Sure, his record is ugly at 8-10, but he's leading the AL in innings pitched with 189.0, and his ERA is nice 2.62. However, he has given up 13 unearned runs. BBref's WAR does not differentiate between earned and unearned runs, so he's only been worth 3.9 WAR according to that system. According to Fangraph's WAR calculations (which basically uses FIP and innings pitched), he's been worth 4.8 wins, good for third in the AL (behind Lee and Liriano). You can debate the merits of both WAR calculations, but either way you look at it King Felix should probably be getting more than the 2% of votes he's currently sitting at.
I voted for Cliff Lee by the way. 7 complete games out of 21? Outstanding. His K/BB is amazing, which tells you he's really on top of his game. Also, he's totally stepped it up for Texas, giving them less than 8 innings only twice.
August 19th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
I voted for Pavano, because of his 'stache and he's had some games where he bailed out the Twins.
August 19th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
I voted for Lee because you can't ignore his numbers. I don't see why anyone would discount Lee based on wins. Are you really suggesting Ervin Santana is a better Cy Young candidate that Cliff Lee?
ESPN's predictor presumably uses the same logic, valuing saves above actual pitching performance.
August 19th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
This is a really tough poll. I'm tempted to vote for Price or Cahill, but neither of them have a ton of innings pitched, which to me is a pretty important stat for a starting pitcher in the era of large and unpredictable bullpens. And amongst the guys with more innings, it seems Lee is in many ways the top choice, but for some reason I'm not inclined to pick him, maybe because he missed a few starts to injury (a Cy Young caliber starter, in my opinion, should be healthy and effective from the beginning of the season to the end) and also maybe because he was traded mid-season (I'll admit that's not really a fair strike against the guy, but it does make him only about half as valuable for any individual team). I don't think relievers should win the award unless there's some outstanding reason, which I don't think there is, and I honestly don't think Sabathia's as good as people say. Ultimately I chose Carl Pavano, mainly because of his mustache.
August 19th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
As far as the wins vs. WAR battle goes....
Wins are a completely overrated stat. Gone are the days of a complete game artists minus Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay. When middle relievers and closers are getting double digit win/loss totals every year it shows how the game has changed. Any starting pitcher can win a ballgame by pitching only 5 innings and getting shelled in the process. A reliever can come in and get a win simply by pitching in an inning wher the lead changes in his favor. For God's sake, Tyler Clippard for the Nats has a 9-6 record in only 68 innings pitched. He leads his team in victories by one over Livan Hernandez and his 162 innings and he's second in total decisions with 15(Hernandez has 16). There is your proof!
Another thing about wins is the Andy Pettitte factor. Sure he's been a very good pitcher, but a HOFamer? His career ERA is nearly 4(3.87 to be exact), that would be the highest ever for a Hall member. His run support over his career has been stellar which explains his inflated win totals and his career WHIP is very high(1.36). Isn't ERA a direct result of good/bad pitching plus defense? With that said, WAR is a definitive mark representing a pitchers true value, separating an average player overall with the one being evaluated.
Take Matt Cain for example. He has over 160 starts to his credit and a losing record(53-61), why? His ERA is only 3.46 with a 1.23 WHIP. It's because he gets hardly any run support. Historically he has the worst run support of any current pitcher in the majors. Give him better support and his win totals sky rocket. Again, wins are overrated for a starter and another 300 game winner isn't likely if Moyer or Pettitte don't get there.
WAR over wins...
August 19th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
My ballot looks like this:
1. Lee
2. Hernandez
3. Lester
4. Cahill
5. Liriano
Cliff Lee is having a historic season, and his ability to go the distance is unmatched by anyone in the AL. He should win this award in a runaway if he keeps it up the rest of the season.
August 19th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
To Jeff.
wins aren't overrated, their the object of the game.
with that said, nice defense of the WAR, but I object to its cumulative approach. Maybe an average WAR would help sort out those wmere lengthhose careers were cut short by injury or overly dependent on
August 19th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
BTW, I'm still waiting for a WAR-head to explain to me how Tuint's WAR was 20% higher than Denny McLain's
August 19th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Barkfart, team wins are the object of the game; individual pitcher wins are not. Pitcher wins are not a great measure of how much a pitcher actually contributes to winning, because they are too dependent on things outside the pitcher's control (run support, bullpen support, defense). A pitcher's job is to prevent runs. The better he is at that, the greater the contribution he's making to winning, regardless of how many Ws and Ls end up next to his name.
August 19th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
If the object of the game is to win, isn't it also to score runs? A pitcher can't get a win without runs scored therefore War prevails. I'm sure you think RBI's are an important stat as well...(considering you can get one without ever swinging the bat).
August 19th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Yeah, it takes more than just a starting pitcher to earn a win for a team. It's so strange that they get statistically assigned to just one player. If only there were a way to break up win across teammates in a way that more accurately reflected who helped with the game....oh WAIT!!!
August 19th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Preach on David, preach on...
August 19th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
I remember the moment I realized that Joe Morgan was not a great baseball announcer. It was during a Sunday night pregame when he was listing his keys to the game and he said that he felt that the team that scored more runs had a great chance of winning that night. Obviously his brain got a listed twisted because even for him that's a tremendously stupid thing to say, but still...
August 19th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Oh, BTW, I pick Cliff Lee hands down. There is a reason the Phillies, Mariners and Rangers went out and got this guy.
Yeah, Joe Morgan is horrible. He never clearly states an opinion, he floats so he doesn't appear bias. My favorite quote by Joe is this.
John Miller:"So do you think Barry Bonds is the best hitter in the game today"...spoken in '04, Joe Morgan:"Well, I never played with him so I really can't say for sure".
August 19th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Lee's season is "historic" as it relates to SO/BB ratio, though what does that imply? That he does not induce as many Double Play opportunities? Bats-men have a habit of finding ways to make an out, be it a K or not. Though he has the best WHIP in the league, his absurdly fortunate HR/FB ratio (3.5%) leaves one to ruminate on his actual place in "history."
August 19th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
"his absurdly fortunate HR/FB ratio (3.5%)"
to Barkfart, here is the most annoying thing about super stat heads, anytime anything is not near average it must indicated luck rather than any skill above average.
However, wins are still a terrible way to evaluate pitchers.
August 19th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
I agree Mike.
Because a pitcher's BABIP or HR/FB% is low or high depending on how one views it doesn't mean they are lucky. Maybe the ball doesn't come off his bat as well because his pitches have better movement. Maybe he hides the ball through his delivery. Whatever the case may be, no one can deny that any pitcher needs help on any given day, even days where they are "perfect".
August 19th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
The stats that really matter are as follows:
WHIP, ERA, Run Support, WAR, IP...
August 19th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
When it's lucked compared to his career, luck factor can be justified
August 19th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Or maybe he got better or is in his prime or having the best season of his career?
August 19th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Clemens just got busted for lying to the grand jury about using PED's.
August 19th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Yup. Clemens might actually go to jail.
August 19th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Noted mike. Yet the lack of run support thus far in Texas is puzzling. Maybe the players on the field are bored because nobody is on base for which to converse. They are wound tight from the prodigious boredom
August 19th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
re: BABIP and HR/FB:
No one claims that these things are based entirely on luck; that's a straw-man accusation that gets repeated ad nauseum. It's just that it's much harder to separate what's skill and what's random noise in BABIP and HR/FB than it is with other stats, namely K%, BB%, and GB%. There's simply a lot more variance year-to-year in a pitcher's BABIP and HR/FB than there is in his strikeout, walk, and groundball rates. If you're trying to evaluate a pitcher's true talent level and predict how well he might perform for your team, you're better off focusing on his Ks, BBs, and GBs. Cliff Lee is much less likely to repeat this year's HR/FB next year than he is to repeat his strikeout and walk rates. If he gives up more home runs next year (or next month, or next week, for that matter), no one should be shocked or alarmed. On the other hand, if he all of a sudden started walking a lot more batters and/or striking out a lot fewer, that would be a bigger cause for concern.
August 19th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
By the way, anyone who's interested in BABIP should read this post made by MGL in the Book Blog yesterday. It clarifies a lot of misconceptions:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/misunderstanding_dips/
August 19th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
No one is talking about what Cliff Lee will do next year, we are talking about what he DID do this year.
August 19th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
I think wins are the key stat for a team, but pitching wins are relevant, too. Yes, they can be inflated (though, as a Yankee fan, I hate to see Pettitte picked on). Yes, a guy with a low ERA is generally better than a guy with great run support. BUT... if you are a starter, you play the biggest role (if you are any good, or really bad) in your team's end result. Also, it's about how your runs are given up. It's not the total, but the distribution. A guy with a 4 ERA who averages 7 IP is generally more valuable than a guy with a 3.75 averaging 5 IP. A guy who blows up now and then but is dominant the rest of the time will have a better W-L record but similar or worse ERA than a guy who is OK all of the time. I'll take the first guy.
I'm sure, just as the Jack Morris-bashers have pointed out (to my disappointment, they appear to be right), most pitchers have similar run bell curves. But you also have your A.J. Burnetts. Find someone with similar WHIP and ERA and it doesn't mean the guy is similar. Winning the game does matter for a pitcher. Best measure? Not on its own, that's for sure. But it is meaningful.
August 19th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
I think that statheads are, by and large, correct; the problem is that some try too hard to discredit conventional stats. OBP is far more important than average, but if you're up against pitchers that don't walk guys (say, in a playoff series), that advantage is neutralized.
August 19th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
"No one is talking about what Cliff Lee will do next year, we are talking about what he DID do this year."
I know, but the point is simply that we have to accept that luck has probably played a role in what he did do this year, at least as far as his HR/FB is concerned--more of a role than it has played in his walks and strikeouts, at any rate.
August 19th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Or that he is really good at not having to throw fastballs down the middle when he is behind in the count or hanging off speed pitches, which is when most HRs are hit.
August 19th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
"Also, it's about how your runs are given up. It's not the total, but the distribution. A guy with a 4 ERA who averages 7 IP is generally more valuable than a guy with a 3.75 averaging 5 IP. A guy who blows up now and then but is dominant the rest of the time will have a better W-L record but similar or worse ERA than a guy who is OK all of the time. I'll take the first guy."
ERA absolutely has its blind spots, but there are still better stats than W-L to turn to in those situations. If I want to know how consistent a pitcher was on a start-by-start basis, I'll look at his quality start percentage. If I want to how important a pitcher's runs-allowed were in terms of when they occurred in the game, I'll look at his WPA. If I want to know how valuable a pitcher was, taking into account both his runs allowed and his innings pitched, I'll look at his WAR (which will reward a pitcher who has a slightly higher ERA but over a lot more innings, everything else being equal).
The thing about W-L is that no matter what you look to if for to tell you, there's some other stat that does a better job of it.
August 19th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
@48 and @52 re: ESPN's Cy Young Predictor
It is simply the results of a formula developed by Bill James and Rob Neyer to predict who will will the award, not who they believed should win the award. The formula was developed based upon voting patterns and statistics over the history of the award. It is based upon traditional stats: W-L, IP, ER, K, Sv, SHO and whether the team makes the playoffs. As voting patterns have changed to consider different statistics the formula has become less accurate for predicting the outcome of the award.
I would imagine that James and Neyer are pleased that their formula is becoming a less accurate method for predicting the outcome of the award.
August 19th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Love the poll and the debate. Andy, was it intentionally inflammatory to leave off wins and saves? I think everyone by now agrees that both are severely flawed means of evaluation, but has the hard-core sabrmetric community reached the point where they are now regarded as absolutely irrelevant--as irrelevant as the pitcher's middle name or how hot his wife is--in ranking past performance? This is an honest question ...
August 19th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
I voted for Povano just to see if it would make any Yankees fans heads explode.
Reality is there are about half a dozen decent candidates with no clear cut "most deserving" as I see it. I might even consider Rivera and I don't think relievers as they are currently being used should ever win the Cy Young.
August 19th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Also randomly it would be nice to see the resutls in order.
August 19th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Mike, Andy's not saying they're THAT irrelevant. The thing is, he only included three stats. Three. No IP, no W, no straight ERA, no K. Only those three. I think those are all reasonable things to look at, but if he puts it all on the screen here, nobody's going to sit and read it all. If you really want to know that data, it's really easy to look up on the site. But he had to pick a few, and these are the three he thought were most important, or probably more accurately, the three-stat package which was most important/beneficial to voters.
August 19th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Sorry, that shouldn't be directed at Mike, but rather at Bureaucratist
August 19th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Jeff at 54,
Did you really think I was going to let this slide even though you completely contradict yourself with what you wrote below!!
You discredit Pettitte credentials by listing only his traditional stats even though you love looking at mainly the saberstats. You basically didn't look at his saberstats. Why? His saberstats actually already put him in the borderline group, and head and shoulders above Moyer, which has averaged under a WAR of 2 for 24 years. Pettitte's at least averaged a WAR of 3.2 for 16 years. His WAR is already 3 points higher than Moyer's with 8 less seasons! Then you argue for the saberstats over traditional stats. How? Please read on.
Here is what you wrote:
"As far as the wins vs. WAR battle goes....
Another thing about wins is the Andy Pettitte factor. Sure he's been a very good pitcher, but a HOFamer? His career ERA is nearly 4(3.87 to be exact), that would be the highest ever for a Hall member. His run support over his career has been stellar which explains his inflated win totals and his career WHIP is very high(1.36). Isn't ERA a direct result of good/bad pitching plus defense? With that said, WAR is a definitive mark representing a pitchers true value, separating an average player overall with the one being evaluated.
Again, wins are overrated for a starter and another 300 game winner isn't likely if Moyer or Pettitte don't get there.
WAR over wins..."
Again, wiping out all of Pettitte's traditional stats and just looking at his saberstats like you love to do, the argument is:
WAR 50.2 (Whitey Ford is 55 in basicially same number of IP)
WPA 23.2 (Bunning is 23.4 in 3700 IP)
ERA+ 117 (Don Drysdale 121 in 3400IP)
(Sorry, WHIP is clearly less important than these 3 saberstats)
Now you can argue that this isn't enough yet, and you would have a legit argument, but if he does the following below--read on. He needs to finish this year and come back and have one more good year next year and then I'd say he's borderline in!....and that would be borderline in by saberstats and traditional stats. Will traditional voters hold the HGH against him long-term is the other big question?
Even for statheads, IF he comes back and pitches another year (a 17th season) and gets to ~3300IP, his WAR could be 54ish, his WPA 25-26 and his ERA+ 115-118............ then just add his 250-300 postseason IP and 5 WAR points and 2.5 WPA points (these stats should count somewhere and somehow, so why not do it by the sabermethods?) ........ then you would have a WAR of 59-60 and a WPA of 27-29 in 3600IP. Don't even bother with the idea that he could have 280 wins combined playoffs and postseason after one more good year.
The bottom line:
Mean WAR for pitchers is 55ish and Pettitte would be basically very near this line; every retired pitcher except Pierce and Saberhagen with a WPA above 28 is in the Hall --Pettitte's would be somewhere in the 27-29 range; The mean ERA + is 121, yes, his would be in the 35% percentile, but with still many below him.
With one more good year his traditional stats would also look like: ~260 wins (~275-280 wins with ~20 playoffs wins), 3300 IP (~3600 IP with playoffs), 3.80-3.90 ERA in AL East and playoffs, 5-6 championships and 8-9 WS appearances.
August 19th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
WAR wins the war over Wins.
August 19th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
I pick Lee but I'm glad to see people recognizing what a stud Trevor Cahill is. If he had any offensive support he'd have 18 wins right now.
August 19th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
"BTW, I'm still waiting for a WAR-head to explain to me how Tiant's WAR was 20% higher than Denny McLain's"
Barkfart, WAR stands for "without any rationality".
I couldn't agree more with Barkfart on Blyleven. Blyleven was an ideal number 2 starter for his career, not a HOF ace. No one, and I mean no one was envisioning Blyleven as a future HOFer when he was ready to hang it up. It was only years after his career were done the WAR-heads are really stretching to find ways to make him seem much better than he actually was. They act as if everyone (other players, fans, coaches, sportswriters, etc.) misevaluated him during his career. It's really condescending to think that everyone during that time misjudged the guy. Give me a trademark season that Blyleven is remembered for. He compiled a ton of Ks (one of his arguing points), but only led the league once. Also, how can a dominant all-time strikeout great have no 300 K seasons? ZERO, not one, even during an era where pitchers threw a lot of innings?!! 2 All Star selections in 20 years??? Part of the HOF is the FAME, and seriously, the guy's had way too vanilla of a career to merit induction, especially when compared to his peers.
August 19th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Nice thread, but it's way too early to worry about determining the CY now. A pitcher can go 8-0 over the last month and a half and change everything.
August 19th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
8-0 with a spiffy ERA that is
August 19th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
I've seen it mentioned in other threads where a Yankee pitcher is given credit for having performed as he did in the powerful AL East and Matt Y @87 mentions it again when discussing Pettitte's career, specifically his ERA. I always questioned this kind of statement, because when you're a Yankee pitcher and thus not facing the Yankee lineup, pitching in the AL East doesn't seem nearly as daunting. I believe the data below supports that conclusion.
I went through the AL Season pages for 1995-2010 (Spanning Pettitte's career) and looked at the difference between the averaged runs scored for the four AL East teams that he would have faced (TOR, BAL, BOS; DET 95-97, TBR 98-10) and the average runs scored per team by the AL that year. I then averaged the four differences and came up with the following (rounded off to the nearest integer). (Note: 2004-2006 is broken out because Pettitte is discussed above and he was pitching for Houston at the time)
1995: -32
1996: -16
1997: -22
1998: -30
1999: -3
2000: -62
2001: -63
2002: -25
2003: +40
---
2004: -5
2005: +20
2006: -33
---
2007: -5
2008: +4
2009: +23
2010: +21
As you can see, facing above average offensive teams in division is a relatively recent phenomenon for Yankees pitchers, and not an overwhelming one at that. Pettitte in particular has faced below average division opponents over the course of his Yankee career.
August 19th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
I agree WAR wins the the war over WINS.
Wiping away name, context and all traditional stats however, I am a curious though, those that value the saberstats, how would you vote for a resume of???
WAR: 59-60 (mean WAR for pitchers is around 55 and Whitey Ford)
WPA 27-28 (everyone but two at 28 or above is in Hall and 7 below 25 are in; data goes back to HoFers since 1950)
ERA+ 117 (would rank 45th among 66 starting pitchers in Hall)
August 19th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Good points #93, but that was a very small part of my argument. I do find your number a bit interesting given that Baltimore had good offensive teams up to about 1999 when some of the largest run deficits were reported?
August 19th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Matt #94,
I'd want to see his peak WAR years (top 5-7 at least) before making a judgment.
August 19th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Sorry for duplicate, but I wanted to mention the ERA+ would be in 3600IP.
I agree WAR wins the the war over WINS.
Wiping away name, context and all traditional stats however, I am a curious though, those that value the saberstats, how would you vote for a resume of???
WAR: 59-60 (mean WAR for pitchers is around 55 and Whitey Ford)
WPA 27-28 (everyone but two at 28 or above is in Hall and 7 below 25 are in; data goes back to HoFers since 1950)
ERA+ 117 (in 3600IP ERA+ would rank 45th among 66 starting pitchers in Hall)
August 19th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
#82 I wasn't trying to be intentionally inflammatory. What I did was this...I wrote the poll, I picked the names based on the earlier Cliff Lee post, and then I thought--what would I look at to evaluate how good a pitcher has been? If I could use only two numbers, I'd pick WAR and ERA+. I was willing to add a third, so I chose WHIP because if all data are from the same year and same league, a direct pitcher-to-pitcher comparison is OKAY (not great, not terrible.)
August 19th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Tiant had a 1.60 era in '68 and lead the league. He lead the league in adjusted ERA+ with a 186+. He lead the league in lowest Hits/9. He lead the league with 9 shutouts. He had a Whip of .871 2nd in the league. He was second in the league in K/9.
Wins are an overrated and crappy stat because of all the variables. McClain was on a great team that lead the American league in Runs Scored and was second in the Majors with 671 runs scored. Tiant was on a below average team that was 8/10 in the A.L. in runs scored and 14/20 in the majors with 516.
McCLain lead the league in run support per game. He averaged 5.2 runs per game while Tiant received 3.2 runs per game. McClain was the only pitcher in the majors to average more than 4.9 runs per game in run support. McClain ranked 1/39 in the A.L. and 1/84 in the majors in run support, that's how he was able to win 30 games.
Tiant ranked 28/39 in A.L. and 49/84 in run support.
August 19th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
#90 Biff:
I appreciate your argument, but I think you're absolutely wrong on two counts:
1) The first time I heard discussion about Blyleven possibly being a Hall of Famer was in 1988. It was regularly mentioned during the early days of ESPN baseball, due mainly to his high K total. Then chatter died down for a while and when sabermetric emerged, he was one of the hidden gems who came out of that. So, it's not true that his HOF candidacy wasn't mentioned until the age of sabermetrics.
2) Your argument about Blyleven not being highly-regarded during his career only reinforces the point that he was an exceptionally unlucky guy. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, 99% of all baseball observers judged starting pitchers on wins, losses, and raw ERA. Blyleven didn't fare well in W and L although his ERA was quite good most of the years of his career (top 10 ERA in 10 different seasons) and he finished at 118 ERA+. I totally agree that he wasn't regarded as an ace, and the fact that he was an All-Star only twice backs that up. All of his stats, though, show that he was a much better pitcher than his W-L record indicates. How do we reconcile what people thought about him at the time vs. what the advanced stats say he is? Your argument only serves to reinforce the idea that the traditional measures like W and L do not agree with what the advanced stats tell.
August 19th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Wins are overrated, but so is WAR -- however, WAR less overrated than wins. Some sabermetricians treat a WAR of 57 the same as someone treats 300 wins. Both are not good.
August 19th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Regarding #99, I hope sabermetrecians take up Tiant's cause after Bly goes in. Tiant should be in IMO.
August 19th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Matt Y,
I wasn't trying to discredit your argument, just the idea that Yankee pitchers of late deserve extra credit for pitching in the AL East which has been asserted on many occasions on this blog. You just happened to bring it up when I had a chance to look into the numbers. Sorry if it came off as attempting to discredit your argument specifically.
Baltimore's offense in that period was basically average except for 1996. For 1995-1999 Baltimore was: -26, +77, +15, +5, +13.
The big negatives were because for 95-97 Detroit was -76, -89, -13 and Toronto was -88, -106, -143. Then Tampa was -192 for 1998. In 2000 BAL -63, BOS -65, TB -124 and TOR +4. 2001 was BAL -100, BOS -15, TB -115, TOR -20.
August 19th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Thanks Evan, I wonder how the numbers would look if you threw out the worst team in each division given just how horrible Tampa was in those first few years.
August 19th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
David,
I think Pettitte's WAR using your preferred formula of Career WAR + 7 best/2 would give you 42. He's definitely a more career guy, but his playoff numbers count more to me even if people want to argue he still has a 3.90 playoff ERA too. I'd weigh playoffs numbers a little more heavily and so 3.90 playoff ERA would be something more like 3.65 ERA.
August 19th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Andy,
Another problem I also have Blyleven is that even when he was on championship teams, Blyleven still wasn't the ace of those teams, so I don't buy the stuck on lousy teams argument. Why would it be unreasonable to expect one memorable dominant season from a HOF? I'm still waiting for someone to give me one season (and he only had 20) where you can actually say to yourself, "Wow, remember the year Blyleven had in 19whenever". Any dominant season, any killer strikeout season, anything. To further show you how useless the WAR(without any rationality) stat can be, take a look at who ranks under Blyleven for career WAR. Guys like Gibson, Carlton, amd Martinez. Please don't tell me that you can say with a straight face that you're taking Blyleven over any of these guys as your ace, please don't. Keep in mind those 3 guys all won CY Youngs on bad teams, so yes, it was possible for Blyleven to do the same. The difference is that Blyleven never did, let alone even get close in many votings. Andy, I do appreciate and thank you for all the work you do for the site, but again, he's a classic example of a compiler with a very good career.
August 19th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Clemens is a jer_, but he should be in the Hall. I just heard Tim K. on ESPN say he thinks Arod, Bonds and Clemens could very well not get in the Hall --can we just fire Bud the Bum now!! Greenies are now illegal in the game, and you can't say they too didn't enhance performance to a degree...and, they were rampant for decades to perhaps more than a half-century. There's three tiers of PED from worst to less bad ---anabolic steroids, HGH, and cocaine/greenies, and one or another have almost always been part of the game --a bunch of hypocrites they are. You can even try the argument that greenies are every bit as bad as HGH since they were likely taken every day by many.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Biff @ 106,
I get why some don't like Blyleven for the Hall, and I don't think he's a slam-dunk as many sabermetricians think he is, but he should be in (yes, I watched a good amount of Bly when I was younger). With that said, with your argument, Nolan Ryan is somewhat questionable too. Ryan never had any really memorable years and he was basically a slightly better Blyleven with 7 no-hitters and more strikeout power. Ryan is firmly in the Hall IMO, and Blyleven is a notch below that but in too.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
What is appalling is these are the same guys that voted for Cy Young and MVP, and offered zero PED concessions in deliberating on the merits of their respective awards seasons. Ridiculous
August 19th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
I hear you, @Andy and @WanderingWinder. I'm even prepared to accept that those are the three best decision-making stats to use. But I would never make that final assessment without also knowing the W/L and save totals. One of the reasons is that neither would players. I don't think there's a player in MLB (including stathead types like Greinke and Lincecum) who would trade a 21-6 3.9 WAR season for a 16-11 5.1 WAR season or consider the latter better than the former in any meaningful way.
August 19th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
Bureaucratist-
You are mixing apples and oranges and bananas and ham steaks and all sorts of stuff.
First, I couldn't care less what the players thought. Many of them know even less about stats than the writers. That's not really a condemnation of them, since it's not really their job to understand the stats, just to know how to play the best baseball they can.
Second, you can't really compare the seasons as you are, because the choices would not break down as such. The question should be, "Would you rather have a 3.9WAR pitcher or a 5.1WAR pitcher." If the circumstances they entered into are the same, than the 5.1WAR pitcher will end up with more Ws almost every time. Even holding to your argument, you are comparing performance and results. But if you asked them going into the playoffs which they would rather be, they'd all choose the former. The 5.1WAR pitcher performed better than the 3.9WAR pitcher, but the results don't indicate that because of things out of their control.
August 19th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Sorry BSK, but when I read things like this above in #111, "First, I couldn't care less what the players thought. Many of them know even less about stats than the writers", I just cringe. Things like this will do nothing other than alienate sabermetricians from writers, players and just about anybody else that likes to look at more than just WAR, ERA+ and WPA. I will say it until I'm blue in the face, there are more ways than one to evaluate a player, and most methods have merit.
August 20th, 2010 at 12:10 am
Bureaucratist @110,
I agree with you that looking at W-L and other traditional statistics are important for award voting is important, though I disagree that Andy should have spent half his morning typing 10 different stats for 13 players into the poll, especially when we all have ready access to this information on this website. I tend to favor more traditional stats, especially ERA+ (granted the + is quite traditional, but I like the idea of park adjustment) a little more for evaluating seasons for awards voting and careers (on the grounds that getting outs, however it is done it the object and it seems unlikely that a pitcher will be lucky/unlucky in terms of BABiP type stats over the course of a career), but the SABR-type stats seem better for evaluating a player's likelihood for success going forward.
But the choice of seasons you present is akin to asking whether the player would rather be lucky or good. No one wants to have poor run support or poor defense. If you asked a starting pitcher whether he would rather throw a complete game one-hitter and lose 1-0 or struggle through 5 innings, give up 5 or 6 runs, but have his team hold on or comeback for a 10-9 win he would choose the latter. But he wouldn't argue after the second game that he had pitched better than he did in the first game.
August 20th, 2010 at 12:28 am
JohnQ @ 99 and Andy @ 100- thank you, you both saved me a bunch of research & put it better than I could have anyways.
And Matt Y @ 101 Other than the pre 1900 pitchers (who admittedly are plentiful on the list) there is no one who won 300 games who wouldn't be the number 1 starter on 98% of all pitching staffs. Even the weakest of the bunch (Sutton, Wynn & Ryan) were good enough to be number 1 on a pennant winner most years. And, while WAR has it's problems, I think the WAR list is generally an even better reflection of the relative worth of most of the pitchers.
I would however, take Juan Marichal (or Carl Hubbell or Jim Palmer or John Smoltz or Jim Bunning or about a dozen other pitchers lower on the list) over Don Drysdale.
August 20th, 2010 at 1:23 am
How did this become a Bert Blyleven thread? I thought it was a '10 Cy Young post.
I guess this is directed at Biff or anyone else who doesn't want to believe Blyleven was dominant pitcher.
Here goes, and I don't need "WAR" or "Win Shares" to tell the story:
Blyleven was overlooked in his career because he played in the Midwest on mediocre/terrible teams before the age of ESPN, Cable, the Internet and MLB t.v. Main stream sports outlets underrated him because W/L is overrated and they put too much emphasis on W/L record. He spent 22 seasons in the big leagues and only played on 5 teams that won 90+ games in a season. And one of the teams '70 Twins happened in his rookie season and two others '88 Twins and the '89 Angels happened towards the end of his career. He was only on two teams, the '77 Rangers and the '79 Pirates that won 90+ games from the time he was 20-36 years old.
He also spent the first 10 years of his career pitching in good Hitter's Parks. He pitched mostly for average fielding teams. Also, his peak came early in his career when he was pitching out of the limelight for the early 70's Twins.
The case for Blyleven:
When he retired he was 3rd all time in K's with 3701. He's still ranked 5th all time.
He's ranked 9th all time in Shutouts with 60.
He Finished in the Top Ten in ERA+ 12 times, Top Five 7 times
He Finished in the Top Ten in ERA 10 times, Top Five 7 times
He Finished in the Top Ten in K's 15 times, Top Five 13 Times
He Finished in the Top Ten in Whip 11 times, Top Five 7 Times
He Finished in the Top Ten in K/9 14 times, Top Five 9 Times
He Finished in the Top Ten in K/BB 16 Times, Top Five 13 Times
He Finished in the Top Ten in BB/9 7 Times, Top Five 3 Times
He Finished in the Top Ten in Shutouts 10 Times, Top Five 9 Times, Top Three 7 Times.
He won 20 games for a bad '73 Twins team. He won 19 games for a horrible '84 Indians team and received the most votes in the Cy Young for a starting pitcher. He won 11 games for a horrible '81 Indians team during the strike and probably would have won 18 games if he was able to get 34 starts.
He won 17 games for bad '86 Twins team and he won 17 games for a bad Indians/Twins teams. He won 17 games for a bad '72 Twins team and 17 games for equally bad '74 Twins team.
He won two Championships, one with the '79 Pirates and one with the '87 Twins. He was excellent in the post season with a 5-1 record, a 2.47 ERA, a 1.077 Whip, and a 36k/8bb ratio.
August 20th, 2010 at 5:44 am
Evan-
Where did I say there was only one way to look at a player? All I said was that players don't really need to understand WAR or ERA+ to be good at what they do. If they do understand it, that's great. But I'd rather they understand the approach to the game that leads to the maximization of their skills. A player doesn't need to know the specific WPA of a SB vs a CS, they just need to know if and when it makes sense to try to steal (if they have the green light to do so on their own). You severely misinterpreted my point.
If players think Ws and RBIs are the most important stats to determine which players are the most talented, they are wrong. And that's okay. It's not their job to understand all of that. Just like a statistician doesn't need to know how to throw a curveball. Players play the game, writers report and analyze and write about the game, scouts observe and scout the game, and statisticians crunch numbers about the game. Each job has a different skill set, though there is obviously overlap between many of them. They need not all be on the same page of the book, so long as they are at least in the book. Far too often, sportswriters tend to be looking at completely different book. The same can be said at times for members of each of the other groups but, in my observation, sportswriters are currently the ones with the biggest gap between what they should be doing and what they are doing.
August 20th, 2010 at 8:48 am
BSK-
I think you mean "Matt Y." My post largely agreed with what you had to say. My point was that most players would rather win with a poor performance than lose with a good performance (or at least we would like to hope that most players feel this way).
My point about evaluating players for award voting is that I feel the awards should be more concerned with being evaluative rather than predictive. That is to say, I have no problem if a player lucks his way to an MVP, Cy Young or RoY, etc. because of an absurdly low/high BABiP. I factor in park factors to put various statistics in context, situational stats to factor out the hitting performances of teammates from Runs/RBIs. If I were working for a front office or were a fantasy player I would factor different stats differently because I am trying to predict future performance.
August 20th, 2010 at 9:05 am
I voted for Lester, but Lee almost undoubtedly deserves it for completing so many games and walking so few batters. Still, I like Lester's K/9 and H/9 advantage, and I can't vote against my beloved Red Sox's ace.
August 20th, 2010 at 10:25 am
So if Trevor Cahill pitched for a team like the Red Sox or Yanks, and had decent run support, he would be an eighteen game winner by now and possibly win 23-24 for the year. He won't win the CY Young because he plays for a team that can't score runs- but is that fair?
August 20th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
#114,
I agree that the WAR is the single best metric to evaluate a player b/c of its inclusivity, but it should be only a subset of how you evaluate a players worthiness of getting in the HALL. I think some base their decision 80% or more on the WAR, ERA+/OPS+ and WPA. 80% or even more than 50% is too high IMHO.
August 20th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Evan-
You are right that I meant Matty Y.
Generally, I agree with your stance regarding awards, but I do think that luck should be factored in if the results are close. You are right about evaluating vs predicting. Keith Law, who I generally really respect, often gets too predictive when discussing rewards. He doesn't think guys playing above their heads deserve All-Star nods and thinks that the ROY should be partly based on what a guy is likely to do in his career. I just can't support those ideas. I don't care if your year is a complete aberration... if you performed fantastically, you should be acknowledged as such. Whether you do it again matters not, because it has already been done. Otherwise, a guy like Cliff Lee might have missed his Cy Young, seeing as how it seemed so out of nowhere for him to pitch like that.
That is why I generally prefer stats that normalize for luck. If these are close and the next level down of stats, which don't/can't completely normalize for luck have one guy ahead, I'll go that way.
August 20th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
BSK-
Can't disagree with giving the nod to the less lucky player, so to speak, as a tie breaker of sorts. If memory serves, Keith Law was a scout for the Blue Jays or had a front office job of some kind with them before he became a writer. Perhaps just a held over occupational hazard to have that line of thinking. Fortunately, I think he is generally out of step with that thinking, at least with respect to RoY. Voters seem to like the story of the player that came out of nowhere without much hype as opposed to the heavily touted prospect. Might almost make up for situations like this year where some writers seemed ready to anoint Heyward NL RoY before the season started and even while he was in the midst of an extended slump/stint on the DL, even though there were plenty of other, more deserving candidates.
August 21st, 2010 at 1:54 am
OK, since Blyleven and Pettitte and level of competition continue to be discussed, I'll chime in with a little something from my ongoing research of 200+ game winners against each other. I know, a million asterisks, since some guys pitched in relief or were just starting or finishing their careers or had better offenses or whatever. Plus, lots of games where only one had a decision. Just sayin'.
Career, in games where both 200GW had the decision, counting postseason, Pettitte is 19-15, including 4-3 vs. Pedro (most common foe) and 3-3 vs. Moyer. As a Yankee, he is 18-14, including 13-6 in World Series winning seasons and 3-5 in 2001 and 2003.
Blyleven is 26-40. He's tied with Red Ruffing for worst win-loss differential. His best is against Sutton, 4-1, and worst against Gaylord Perry, Frank Tanana and Steve Carlton (0-4 vs. each). Most common foe is Morris (3-3). He did have a winning record in all three division-winning seasons (2-0 in '70, 4-3 in '79 and 2-1 in '87).
Does this help or hurt a case for either? I'm not sure without further data. But it does make me wonder if Berty fed off weak foes or if he was just betrayed by teammates against the really good ones.