PDA

View Full Version : Felix Hernandez, AL Cy Young Winner


goofymsfan
11-18-2010, 02:01 PM
Congrats to King Felix for winning this well deserved honor.

Per ESPN Announcement.

DirtySox
11-18-2010, 02:03 PM
The absolute correct decision.

Lol wins.

Lyle Mouton
11-18-2010, 02:03 PM
A proud day for smart people everywhere.

Marqhead
11-18-2010, 02:05 PM
This is going to be a terrific thread. :cool:

Congrats to Felix, well deserved.

soxfanatlanta
11-18-2010, 02:13 PM
Talent winning over popularity? Refreshing!

GABP
11-18-2010, 02:14 PM
Absolutely the right choice. Well done, voters.

JermaineDye05
11-18-2010, 02:14 PM
So far they've gotten everything right, except for that damn GG.

goofymsfan
11-18-2010, 02:15 PM
He had 21 of the 28 1st place votes.

doublem23
11-18-2010, 02:17 PM
The Yankees already got their token, undeserved award with Jeter's GG anyway.

:clap:

Bravo, voters

asindc
11-18-2010, 02:19 PM
The right choice.

WhiteSox5187
11-18-2010, 02:21 PM
Undoubtedly the right choice.

Noneck
11-18-2010, 02:23 PM
Well done Baseball Writers’ Association of America.

It is so nice when winning % and # of wins aren't the only criteria used for this award.

VenturaFan23
11-18-2010, 02:32 PM
The right choice for sure. Congrats Felix!

SOXfnNlansing
11-18-2010, 02:33 PM
I'm glad to see the right player win the award. Happy for M's fans too.

tstrike2000
11-18-2010, 02:53 PM
Tops in ERA, innings pitched, and second in strikeouts. Good choice by the voters and congrats to King Felix.

happydude
11-18-2010, 02:56 PM
Wow! I just saw the news and am very surprised. I would have picked CC and was certain that the writers would choose either he or David Price. Its hard to believe a guy with a 13-12 record could be Cy Young but you peripheral stat guys were right all along and I was dead wrong and that's more than ok with me. It wasn't even close. Congrats to King Felix!

SI1020
11-18-2010, 02:57 PM
Add me to the chorus, King Felix deserved it. Too bad this kind of thinking among the baseball electorate came decades too late for guys like Billy Pierce and Joe Horlen.

spawn
11-18-2010, 03:05 PM
Congrats Felix. Well deserved!:gulp:

soxinem1
11-18-2010, 03:26 PM
I agree with the vote entirely.

However, does he still win if he is 12-13 or 11-14?

soxpride724
11-18-2010, 03:44 PM
Well deserved. I'm glad the writers who voted for him were able to look beyond the wins and losses.

dickallen15
11-18-2010, 03:59 PM
Why do I have a feeling if John Danks had David Price's numbers this year, a lot of posters praising this selection would be up in arms?

doublem23
11-18-2010, 04:11 PM
Why do I have a feeling if John Danks had David Price's numbers this year, a lot of posters praising this selection would be up in arms?

Because this is a White Sox fan website?

:thinking:

JermaineDye05
11-18-2010, 04:11 PM
Why do I have a feeling if John Danks had David Price's numbers this year, a lot of posters praising this selection would be up in arms?

I have no idea.

spawn
11-18-2010, 04:18 PM
Why do I have a feeling if John Danks had David Price's numbers this year, a lot of posters praising this selection would be up in arms?

Because we're totally biased?

Chez
11-18-2010, 04:38 PM
Five years ago, with the identical numbers, the voters would have given the award to C.C. or Price.

Pablo_Honey
11-18-2010, 04:38 PM
Wow, just, wow. Congratulations to Felix! After the usual Jeter GG bullcrap, I thought it would be CC taking it with ease but wow, I didn't expect Felix to win it so decisively.

kittle42
11-18-2010, 04:47 PM
BUT, BUT, BUT.....WINS!

This is a win...for statheads everywhere!

Bobby Thigpen
11-18-2010, 04:57 PM
Don't hurt yourselves patting yourself on the back guys.

happydude
11-18-2010, 05:15 PM
Don't hurt yourselves patting yourself on the back guys.

Lol. I was on the losing side of the debate/argument but to the victor go the spoils. If folks choose to gloat, somewhat, I say more power to them. None of us are lessened for being wrong nor made better by being right. On to the next thing to disagree about...

TaylorStSox
11-18-2010, 05:19 PM
What was his FABIB/ERZA+ rating during day games following night games in August against clean up hitters though? Thought so!

Marqhead
11-18-2010, 05:40 PM
Don't hurt yourselves patting yourself on the back guys.

Just as long as you don't strain a muscle in your face from frowning.

Bob Roarman
11-18-2010, 06:17 PM
A corner has been turned with this. Overdue, maybe, but better late than never. And decisive as well, with 21 out a possible 28 first place votes.

doublem23
11-18-2010, 06:28 PM
What was his FABIB/ERZA+ rating during day games following night games in August against clean up hitters though? Thought so!

:rolleyes:

Yes, "Innings Pitched," and "Strikeouts," and "ERA" are such difficult stats to comprehend.

TDog
11-18-2010, 06:45 PM
It was a ridiculous decision, but at least the award didn't go to a relief pitcher.

happydude
11-18-2010, 06:55 PM
A corner has been turned with this. Overdue, maybe, but better late than never. And decisive as well, with 21 out a possible 28 first place votes.

When I became aware of this decision I immediately recalled the discussion we all had on this subject and your suggestion, specifically and by implication, that the powers that be acknowledge new relevant data and utilize it in their decision making. This vote certainly represents a paradigm shift; one that the rest of us must accept and factor into our own thinking in the future.

GABP
11-18-2010, 07:09 PM
It was a ridiculous decision, but at least the award didn't go to a relief pitcher.

sigh.

Explain.

Bob Roarman
11-18-2010, 07:25 PM
When I became aware of this decision I immediately recalled the discussion we all had on this subject and your suggestion, specifically and by implication, that the powers that be acknowledge new relevant data and utilize it in their decision making. This vote certainly represents a paradigm shift; one that the rest of us must accept and factor into our own thinking in the future.

Static, empirical knowledge and information doesn't really exist. It's our insight (or lack of) into the emergence of all systems that determines what aligns us and drives us forward towards progression. How open we are to new information and whether or not we accept it and explore upon it or reject it and preserve outdated ideas and structures. That applies to everything, that last part of your post rings true in every aspect of our lives, not just baseball.

And in this particular case, I don't see it as taking sides and rooting for one player over the other, but as being open to new data over years of discovery, even if (and especially if) the consequences of this new information means re-evaluating your own set of beliefs and changing them in light of it.

happydude
11-18-2010, 07:31 PM
Static, empirical knowledge and information doesn't really exist. It's our insight (or lack of) into the emergence of all systems that determines what aligns us and drives us forward towards progression. How open we are to new information and whether or not we accept it and explore upon it or reject it and preserve outdated ideas and structures. That applies to everything, that last part of your post rings true in every aspect of our lives, not just baseball.

And in this particular case, I don't see it as taking sides and rooting for one player over the other, but as being open to new data over years of discovery, even if (and especially if) the consequences of this new information means re-evaluating your own set of beliefs and changing them in light of it.

Agreed in entirety; particularly with the importance of utilizing this approach in every aspect of life, in general.

TaylorStSox
11-18-2010, 07:43 PM
:rolleyes:

Yes, "Innings Pitched," and "Strikeouts," and "ERA" are such difficult stats to comprehend.

Way to take a ridiculous post seriously. You win!

DumpJerry
11-18-2010, 07:50 PM
The fix was in. Don't they realize he plays on the wrong coast and had maybe two appearances on ESPN?

Or maybe they thought it was Keith Hernandez (yeah, I know he played First, but they got excited).

Congrats not only to King Felix, but to all other hard working hurlers out there who don't get the run and defensive support to win 20 games. There is hope!

Daver
11-18-2010, 07:52 PM
Static, empirical knowledge and information doesn't really exist.

It doesn't?

Do away with the public school system then.

doublem23
11-18-2010, 07:56 PM
Way to take a ridiculous post seriously. You win!

:thinking:

Aren't you the same guy who went berserk when the Sox got Freddy from Seattle like 10 years ago because Freddy didn't have enough wins? Even though the M's were only scoring like 1.5 RPG in support of him, he sucked because "good pitchers find a way to win no matter what?"

Sorry, it's hard to read subtle context in written form, especially since there are some people that actually hold that line of thinking. But it's cool, it's not like there's a designated color for posts not to be taken 100% seriously.

Bob Roarman
11-18-2010, 07:56 PM
Ahh good ole' Dave, there he is! Sorry Dave, can't comment on that, as well you should know, you guys created an entire forum to deal with questions and discussions just like those. So unless you want to bring it there, I'm not going to derail and close down an entire thread here. You do try so very hard though, I'll give you that.

kittle42
11-18-2010, 08:05 PM
It was a ridiculous decision, but at least the award didn't go to a relief pitcher.

So says the man who would give the award to a guy with a statline like 24-7, 123K, 200 IP; 5.20 ERA.

mjmcend
11-18-2010, 08:27 PM
Outstanding. Good for Felix.

Daver
11-18-2010, 08:37 PM
Ahh good ole' Dave, there he is! Sorry Dave, can't comment on that, as well you should know, you guys created an entire forum to deal with questions and discussions just like those. So unless you want to bring it there, I'm not going to derail and close down an entire thread here. You do try so very hard though, I'll give you that.

You're the one painting with a broad brush and making broad statements that have no basis in fact or reality, not me.

Carry on.

TDog
11-18-2010, 08:40 PM
sigh.

Explain.

The Cy Young is voted on by two beat writers from each AL city. This year they voted for the pitcher with the best stats, a pitcher who not only was not under pressure to win games, but who struggled to win games. His lack of offensive support is irrelevant. The award probably should have gone to Price, who was pitching for a title. Hernandez was pitching for stats.

It isn't that a pitcher from a last-place team has no business winning a Cy Young Award. Steve Carlton won a Cy Young Award in 1972 for a team that won just 59 games. Of course, he won 27 of his starts that season while recording an ERA under 2.

It really doesn't matter much to me except in the academic senses. I don't particularly like Price or any of the other contenders this year. Maybe the writers don't like Price or Sabathia either and it ended up being the most likeable pitcher under the excuse that he had the best stats.

If it were a White Sox pitcher who was cheated out of the award, I would be disappointed.

TaylorStSox
11-18-2010, 08:43 PM
:thinking:

Aren't you the same guy who went berserk when the Sox got Freddy from Seattle like 10 years ago because Freddy didn't have enough wins? Even though the M's were only scoring like 1.5 RPG in support of him, he sucked because "good pitchers find a way to win no matter what?"

Sorry, it's hard to read subtle context in written form, especially since there are some people that actually hold that line of thinking. But it's cool, it's not like there's a designated color for posts not to be taken 100% seriously.

Good memory. I thought Freddy was a loser who couldnt win a big game. Thank God I was dead wrong. IMO certain pitchers have an intangible that gives them the ability to win even when they're up against it. Thus giving some value to the W/L stat. As far as the topic, I really dont have a dog in this fight. Both the nerds and the phogeys are right. King Felix deserved to win. With that said, I'd support a guy on the opposite end of the spectrum. Lets say a pitcher goes 25-6 with a 4.40 era and 105 k's in 203 ip. I'd be hard pressed to vote against him.

Bob Roarman
11-18-2010, 10:06 PM
The Cy Young is voted on by two beat writers from each AL city. This year they voted for the pitcher with the best stats, a pitcher who not only was not under pressure to win games, but who struggled to win games. His lack of offensive support is irrelevant. The award probably should have gone to Price, who was pitching for a title. Hernandez was pitching for stats.

It isn't that a pitcher from a last-place team has no business winning a Cy Young Award. Steve Carlton won a Cy Young Award in 1972 for a team that won just 59 games. Of course, he won 27 of his starts that season while recording an ERA under 2.

It really doesn't matter much to me except in the academic senses. I don't particularly like Price or any of the other contenders this year. Maybe the writers don't like Price or Sabathia either and it ended up being the most likeable pitcher under the excuse that he had the best stats.

If it were a White Sox pitcher who was cheated out of the award, I would be disappointed.

When you're judging a pitcher on the amount of games he's won or his ability to win games, it's COMPLETELY relevant. Completely. Sabathia had just one less victory (12) in games where he received 6+ runs of support than Hernandez had games won overall. Think about that for a minute and tell me that it's not relevant again. You'd literally have to be willingly blind to the facts to say so. I just.. I don't know what else to point out, what easier way to show it. It's just so glaringly obvious.

TDog
11-19-2010, 01:36 AM
When you're judging a pitcher on the amount of games he's won or his ability to win games, it's COMPLETELY relevant. Completely. Sabathia had just one less victory (12) in games where he received 6+ runs of support than Hernandez had games won overall. Think about that for a minute and tell me that it's not relevant again. You'd literally have to be willingly blind to the facts to say so. I just.. I don't know what else to point out, what easier way to show it. It's just so glaringly obvious.

Of course, you don't know if Sabathia's wins with six or more runs of offensive support wouldn't have been wins if the Yankees had scored less than three runs for him.

Baseball isn't played in a vacuum or as a video game. Sometimes conditions contribute to low scoring games. Sometimes pitchers stay in the game longer than they should if they have a big lead to save the bullpen. You don't know if Hernandez would have finished the season with such a low ERA if he had pitched for the Yankees.

I've never seen any pitcher win 24 games with an ERA over 5.

Bob Roarman
11-19-2010, 04:47 AM
Of course, you don't know if Sabathia's wins with six or more runs of offensive support wouldn't have been wins if the Yankees had scored less than three runs for him.

Baseball isn't played in a vacuum or as a video game. Sometimes conditions contribute to low scoring games. Sometimes pitchers stay in the game longer than they should if they have a big lead to save the bullpen. You don't know if Hernandez would have finished the season with such a low ERA if he had pitched for the Yankees.

I've never seen any pitcher win 24 games with an ERA over 5.

Well I guess you have a point. I don't know what Hernandez would've done in New York. But I can try and figure why he didn't have more wins than he did in Seattle, since that is the sticking point in this debate. And you don't have to be a "stat head" to understand the following break down. You don't have to support sabermetrics or be like Daver and inexplicably think little to none of the advanced stats has any bearing whatsoever. You don't have to be any of that to realize just how good Hernandez was and how deserving he was of the Cy Young.

Last season Hernandez had 30 quality starts. There was only one of those quality starts that could be considered "cheap" in where he just barely met the requirements. Pretty damn good, led the MLB, and I hope by god that we can all at least agree that quality starts is a legit stat, something that can help measure a pitcher's performance. Help to measure, understand I'm not going on that one stat alone, I'm just using it as a jumping off point.

Assuming we can agree on that, let's delve deeper into those starts and start to expand analysis and not just spout off those darned tricky advanced stats like WAR and ERA+ and confuse everyone. So out of those 30 quality starts, Felix had 13 wins. His stat line in those 13 wins:

106+ IP, 0.84 ERA, 0.78 WHIP, 117 K, 19 BB, 10 ER.

About as good as you can possibly be. But there were still 17 games he either got the loss or a no decision. Of those 17 quality starts where he didn't get a win this is his stat line:

0 wins, 8 losses, 9 no decisions. 123 IP, 2.20 ERA, 1.14 WHIP, 30 ER, 97 Ks, 103 H, 30 BB.

Wow, still great numbers. So how the hell did he not get a single win out of any those games? Going further into those 17 games while he was still the pitcher of record, this is what the Seattle offensive juggernaut supported him with:

24 runs (not even a run and a half a game) a .208 collective batting average, .268 OBP, .295 SLG and hit .149 (15-101) w/RISP.

That is what you call stunningly and shamefully ****ing awful. One of, if not the, worst offenses of the past decade. 7 of those games they scored jack **** while he was in the game. They scored a whopping one run 4 times and 2 runs twice. But let's go even deeper, just for fun, and see how the bullpen did in those same games.

Of those same 17 games, Felix completed two of them (both losses of course) and the bullpen pitched in the remaining 15 games. In 3 of those games, they actually did their job and let up nothing. In 12 of the 15 games this is how they fared:

31 IP, 45 H, 23 BB, 32 ER (!!), 9.29 ERA, 2.194 WHIP

That's Boone Logan bad. "No chance" bad.

Hernandez's overall numbers in his 30 quality starts are:
229.2 IP, 167 H, 40 ER, 56 BB, 214 SO, 11 HR, 1.57 ERA, 0.97 WHIP

Great numbers. Couldn't ask for those kind of numbers. But that's what he put up. And he has 13 wins to show for it. The funny thing is that if he's just a bit worse than a world beater in those games, he probably has even less wins. Maybe he's not even over .500, who knows. The point is looking at the number of wins he has does not even come within a mile of how well he pitched this season or how any other pitcher performed. You're putting way too much emphasis on something that doesn't account for near enough of how well or poorly a player pitched during the season.

Like I said, you don't have to be a stat geek or a "propeller head" to understand why Hernandez won the Cy Young. He just had an absolutely historically bad offense which gave him less than minimal support in the vast majority of games he pitched and the bullpen definitely was not doing him any favors either. You can't rack up 19-20 wins if your team struggles to score a little over 1 run a game in over half the games you pitch in. Period. You can pitch lights out (and he did in those games) and most of the time it won't matter and it was no different for Felix. He was fortunate to finish with 13 wins. That's insane to have to say that, but it's true.

asindc
11-19-2010, 08:42 AM
The Cy Young is voted on by two beat writers from each AL city. This year they voted for the pitcher with the best stats, a pitcher who not only was not under pressure to win games, but who struggled to win games. His lack of offensive support is irrelevant. The award probably should have gone to Price, who was pitching for a title. Hernandez was pitching for stats.

It isn't that a pitcher from a last-place team has no business winning a Cy Young Award. Steve Carlton won a Cy Young Award in 1972 for a team that won just 59 games. Of course, he won 27 of his starts that season while recording an ERA under 2.

It really doesn't matter much to me except in the academic senses. I don't particularly like Price or any of the other contenders this year. Maybe the writers don't like Price or Sabathia either and it ended up being the most likeable pitcher under the excuse that he had the best stats.

If it were a White Sox pitcher who was cheated out of the award, I would be disappointed.

TDog,

You probably have noticed that I'm almost as critical of the "stats say everything" crowd, but in this case I really don't think an solid argument can be made against the idea the Hernandez was the best pitcher in the AL this year. Concerning the first bolded statement above, Hernandez won 7 games against teams that ultimately made the playoffs this year, Sabathia won 4 and Price won 3. So given one of your main criteria for evaluation, Fernandez clearly shined brighter than his main competitors for the award. Even if you think he was just pitching for "stats," the 7 playoff-bound teams damn sure were not playing just for stats.

As for the second bolded statement, there is no evidence of cheating in this case.

Bobby Thigpen
11-19-2010, 08:56 AM
Just as long as you don't strain a muscle in your face from frowning.
How exactly am I frowning by commenting on the stat heads' self victory dance?

doublem23
11-19-2010, 09:16 AM
How exactly am I frowning by commenting on the stat heads' self victory dance?

Oh my god, this isn't a victory for any group of people other than those... with a brain... who can infer even the tiniest bit of data. Felix didn't win because he came close to his PECOTA projections, or that his WAR was amazing, or that his xBAABIP was the best we've ever seen. He won on the back of his great ERA, lofty strikeout total, and the amount of innings he pitched. ERA. K. IP. These are classic stats that everyone knows, understands, and agrees on being fundamental metrics in baseball. It just takes the slightest shred of intelligence to realize his 13-12 record was the byproduct of being on a very, very bad baseball team. The Cy Youg Award is explicitly to be given to the best pitcher in the league, not "the best pitcher who wins a lot of games because he's also on a great team." Normally you can make a case for several pitchers, but this year there was only one clear choice, and that was Felix Hernandez.

Bob Roarman
11-19-2010, 09:21 AM
TDog,

You probably have noticed that I'm almost as critical of the "stats say everything" crowd, but in this case I really don't think an solid argument can be made against the idea the Hernandez was the best pitcher in the AL this year. Concerning the first bolded statement above, Hernandez won 7 games against teams that ultimately made the playoffs this year, Sabathia won 4 and Price won 3. So given one of your main criteria for evaluation, Fernandez clearly shined brighter than his main competitors for the award. Even if you think he was just pitching for "stats," the 7 playoff-bound teams damn sure were not playing just for stats.

As for the second bolded statement, there is no evidence of cheating in this case.

I think that there is some merit of continually pitching at a very high caliber for a team with the expectations like the Yankees than compared to a player pitching for a team like the Royals or last year's Mariners. But never enough to override what can be measured. Especially not when the majority of the pitching stats are all in favor of one player over the others in contention.

And then again, on the other hand, if you want to talk about pressure on a pitcher to win, well what greater pressure is there than knowing every start you make you better "throw it through a tea cup" because you'll be lucky to get 2 runs of support compared to having one of the best offenses in the league backing you up. You can spin the "pitching under pressure" argument a couple different ways.

Bobby Thigpen
11-19-2010, 09:42 AM
Oh my god, this isn't a victory for any group of people other than those... with a brain... who can infer even the tiniest bit of data. Felix didn't win because he came close to his PECOTA projections, or that his WAR was amazing, or that his xBAABIP was the best we've ever seen. He won on the back of his great ERA, lofty strikeout total, and the amount of innings he pitched. ERA. K. IP. These are classic stats that everyone knows, understands, and agrees on being fundamental metrics in baseball. It just takes the slightest shred of intelligence to realize his 13-12 record was the byproduct of being on a very, very bad baseball team. The Cy Youg Award is explicitly to be given to the best pitcher in the league, not "the best pitcher who wins a lot of games because he's also on a great team." Normally you can make a case for several pitchers, but this year there was only one clear choice, and that was Felix Hernandez.
You're something else.

BTW- I don't care if he won or not. Just annoyed that people are posting that based on their love stats, that if you don't agree that he should have won you must be an idiot that has no intelligence.

But, why would that be any different than normal on here?

hdog1017
11-19-2010, 10:16 AM
If you put Felix on the Yankees, he wins 20 plus easy. I am glad that the BBWA got this right.

voodoochile
11-19-2010, 11:56 AM
Well I've expressed my opinion on this matter in the first thread speculating on who should win. I think the award should include wins as a component of the decision process because it's why we remember the guy who it's named for.

Quick, don't look it up... what was Cy Young's ERA? His WHIP? His ERA+?

On the other hand it's not that big of a deal to me it merely shows how much stats are coming to dominate the discussion in baseball. I'm sure there will be some people scratching their heads over the decision but most people have access to the Internet and can figure out what happened and why fairly easily.

I do agree that you cannot say that Hernandez wouldn't have had more wins in NY, but you also also can't say that CC wouldn't have had better stats pitching for Seattle this year. That sword cuts both ways. You afford Felix the benefit of the doubt but not CC and that seems hypocritical to me.

It's not that big of a deal anyway from my perspective.

doublem23
11-19-2010, 12:05 PM
I do agree that you cannot say that Hernandez wouldn't have had more wins in NY, but you also also can't say that CC wouldn't have had better stats pitching for Seattle this year. That sword cuts both ways. You afford Felix the benefit of the doubt but not CC and that seems hypocritical to me.


If you want to take into consideration the different ballparks they play in, OK, I'll listen to that, but if you think you could drop CC onto the Mariners with their pathetic offense, and he pitched the way he did for the Yankees, there is no way he'd rack up 21 wins.

voodoochile
11-19-2010, 01:06 PM
If you want to take into consideration the different ballparks they play in, OK, I'll listen to that, but if you think you could drop CC onto the Mariners with their pathetic offense, and he pitched the way he did for the Yankees, there is no way he'd rack up 21 wins.

That was not my point.

The whole basis for giving Felix the award is that his stats are so much better that his win total doesn't matter. Then people go on to say he would have more wins playing for the Yankees due to the better offense.

I am arguing that CC might have better peripheral stats facing the competition in the ALW compared to the ALE and pitching in a stress free environment the whole season compared to being in a pennant race from day one.

Would Felix have the same peripheral stats pitching in the ALE and under all that pressure all year where often times whether the Yankees were going to win the division, be the WC or even make the playoffs came down to a few pitches in a few ballgames.

To argue that Felix would have more wins but ignore the fact that CC might have better numbers (and less wins) if their teams were switched seems disingenuous.

GABP
11-19-2010, 01:10 PM
That was not my point.

The whole basis for giving Felix the award is that his stats are so much better that his win total doesn't matter. Then people go on to say he would have more wins playing for the Yankees due to the better offense.

I am arguing that CC might have better peripheral stats facing the competition in the ALW compared to the ALE and pitching in a stress free environment the whole season compared to being in a pennant race from day one.

Would Felix have the same peripheral stats pitching in the ALE and under all that pressure all year where often times whether the Yankees were going to win the division, be the WC or even make the playoffs came down to a few pitches in a few ballgames.

To argue that Felix would have more wins but ignore the fact that CC might have better numbers (and less wins) if their teams were switched seems disingenuous.

Just miserable analysis.

doublem23
11-19-2010, 01:15 PM
Just miserable analysis.

Well that's constructive criticism.

I think VC brings up some fair points that, while I do not completely agree with, are deserving of more a thoughtful response.

spawn
11-19-2010, 01:17 PM
Just miserable analysis.

Not as bad as yours. :shrug: The least you could've done is give a reason you feel this way. It's easy to criticize without backing it up.

soltrain21
11-19-2010, 01:47 PM
Not as bad as yours. :shrug: The least you could've done is give a reason you feel this way. It's easy to criticize without backing it up.

Pft. Says you.

PennStater98r
11-19-2010, 03:25 PM
Felix deserved to win - as another poster pointed out - it's not as though we were using obscure stats in measuring his success. ERA, strikeouts, IP and WHIP were considered. That's four of five stats that are used year in and year out in considering who the best pitcher is.

To me, what's telling is that this is the Cy Young award - not the MVP (which often seems to be awarded to someone based on intangible values) - in which we start considering how much that player contributed to the team's success. Cy Young has always been intended to go to the pitcher with the best stats.

Granted, it's not like the Rolaids Relief award in which point values are awarded to statistics (3 for save, 2 for win, -2 for loss, etc), but I do think that at the end of the day - pitchers are measured on the key statistics that have been important for a century - and Felix blew away the competition in four of the five... (six if you count losses).

Marqhead
11-19-2010, 03:33 PM
That was not my point.

The whole basis for giving Felix the award is that his stats are so much better that his win total doesn't matter. Then people go on to say he would have more wins playing for the Yankees due to the better offense.

I am arguing that CC might have better peripheral stats facing the competition in the ALW compared to the ALE and pitching in a stress free environment the whole season compared to being in a pennant race from day one.

Would Felix have the same peripheral stats pitching in the ALE and under all that pressure all year where often times whether the Yankees were going to win the division, be the WC or even make the playoffs came down to a few pitches in a few ballgames.

To argue that Felix would have more wins but ignore the fact that CC might have better numbers (and less wins) if their teams were switched seems disingenuous.

Voodoo, check out the splits for both CC and Felix on baseball-reference.com. They don't have them split up by division, and of course CC faced the AL East a lot more than Felix did, but Felix's numbers against teams with a .500+ record are better than his stats against opponents who were under .500, and they are much better than CC's for regardless of opponent.

I'm sure if you put Felix in the AL East for an entire season his numbers would go up, but I don't think there would be such a huge change that he wouldn't still be top 3, or in this case (IMO) the best pitcher in the league. Especially if you put an AL East offense behind him.

Small sample size, but Felix was 3-0 vs. the Yanks with 1 CG and 1SHO and a 0.35 ERA.

Bob Roarman
11-19-2010, 04:30 PM
That was not my point.

The whole basis for giving Felix the award is that his stats are so much better that his win total doesn't matter. Then people go on to say he would have more wins playing for the Yankees due to the better offense.

I am arguing that CC might have better peripheral stats facing the competition in the ALW compared to the ALE and pitching in a stress free environment the whole season compared to being in a pennant race from day one.

Would Felix have the same peripheral stats pitching in the ALE and under all that pressure all year where often times whether the Yankees were going to win the division, be the WC or even make the playoffs came down to a few pitches in a few ballgames.

To argue that Felix would have more wins but ignore the fact that CC might have better numbers (and less wins) if their teams were switched seems disingenuous.

The problem is you cannot judge either pitcher on things that didn't happen. All you can do is judge them on what they did. We can argue until we are blue in the face whether or not Sabathia would have similar stats if the situations were reversed, but we're never going to know and it's not fair to either player to draw conclusions from those kind of assumptions without anything solid to back it up.

All you can do is take each pitcher's body of work, what they did in their games they started and draw conclusions from those games. And in Hernandez's case, in 30 of his 34 starts, he pitched amazingly well and he got 13 wins to show for it not because of any fault of his, but because he had one of the worst offenses of the past 10 years as his offensive support. In half of the games he pitched in they averaged 1.41 runs per game. It's obvious what the problem was.

The W-L stat is more deceptive and says less about the pitcher than any other stat or metric that people like to rail against. You can pitch in a 9-8 game and be horrible and get a win. A pitcher cannot control whether he gets a win or not, he can only control how well he pitches. And that's what the judgment of this award is and should always be on. I don't care what the award is named, it's not given out for how many wins you attain, it's for how well you pitch. The number 13 wins alone will never tell you how good Hernandez was this year. This was a litmus test for baseball.

voodoochile
11-19-2010, 07:29 PM
The problem is you cannot judge either pitcher on things that didn't happen. All you can do is judge them on what they did. We can argue until we are blue in the face whether or not Sabathia would have similar stats if the situations were reversed, but we're never going to know and it's not fair to either player to draw conclusions from those kind of assumptions without anything solid to back it up.

All you can do is take each pitcher's body of work, what they did in their games they started and draw conclusions from those games. And in Hernandez's case, in 30 of his 34 starts, he pitched amazingly well and he got 13 wins to show for it not because of any fault of his, but because he had one of the worst offenses of the past 10 years as his offensive support. In half of the games he pitched in they averaged 1.41 runs per game. It's obvious what the problem was.

The W-L stat is more deceptive and says less about the pitcher than any other stat or metric that people like to rail against. You can pitch in a 9-8 game and be horrible and get a win. A pitcher cannot control whether he gets a win or not, he can only control how well he pitches. And that's what the judgment of this award is and should always be on. I don't care what the award is named, it's not given out for how many wins you attain, it's for how well you pitch. The number 13 wins alone will never tell you how good Hernandez was this year. This was a litmus test for baseball.

I'm not that worked up about it either way. I have said my piece. I still believe wins should play a factor in the Cy Young decision process. CC's number scream Cy Young winner in all phases of the game. Felix's do also except in his W-L record. His peripherals are indeed considerably better than CC's on that I won't argue the point. I think a valid argument can be made for either of them or for Price.

Personally I'd have preferred the award went to CC or Price. That's all.

TDog
11-19-2010, 07:30 PM
TDog,

You probably have noticed that I'm almost as critical of the "stats say everything" crowd, but in this case I really don't think an solid argument can be made against the idea the Hernandez was the best pitcher in the AL this year. Concerning the first bolded statement above, Hernandez won 7 games against teams that ultimately made the playoffs this year, Sabathia won 4 and Price won 3. So given one of your main criteria for evaluation, Fernandez clearly shined brighter than his main competitors for the award. Even if you think he was just pitching for "stats," the 7 playoff-bound teams damn sure were not playing just for stats.

As for the second bolded statement, there is no evidence of cheating in this case.

Stats don't matter if you don't win games. If Cy Young had lost 511 1-0 games, there wouldn't be an award named after him. Statisticians went back into old box scores and figured out he would have recorded an ERA of 2.63 if ERA had been an official stat during his career. Ed Walsh's career ERA was 1.82.

There is no Ed Walsh Award.

Lyle Mouton
11-19-2010, 07:53 PM
Stats don't matter if you don't win games. If Cy Young had lost 511 1-0 games, there wouldn't be an award named after him. Statisticians went back into old box scores and figured out he would have recorded an ERA of 2.63 if ERA had been an official stat during his career. Ed Walsh's career ERA was 1.82.

There is no Ed Walsh Award.
Now, that there is some airtight logic.

Bob Roarman
11-20-2010, 02:32 AM
I'm not that worked up about it either way. I have said my piece. I still believe wins should play a factor in the Cy Young decision process. CC's number scream Cy Young winner in all phases of the game. Felix's do also except in his W-L record. His peripherals are indeed considerably better than CC's on that I won't argue the point. I think a valid argument can be made for either of them or for Price.

Personally I'd have preferred the award went to CC or Price. That's all.

Stats don't matter if you don't win games. If Cy Young had lost 511 1-0 games, there wouldn't be an award named after him. Statisticians went back into old box scores and figured out he would have recorded an ERA of 2.63 if ERA had been an official stat during his career. Ed Walsh's career ERA was 1.82.

There is no Ed Walsh Award.


A pitcher cannot control whether he wins a game or not. He CANNOT CONTROL THAT. How do you guys put that much emphasis on the one pitching stat that is most out of the pitcher's control? Explain that to me. The award is on who pitches the best during the season. It's that damn simple. We just saw the sterling example of this with Felix Hernandez this season.

Voodoo, you yourself say, you admit, that Hernandez's numbers scream Cy Young and his peripherals are considerably better than everyone else except for his W-L record. Now what do you think that means, what do you think that says about that stat? Come on man, just put two and two together, you are right there, this close. You don't have to subscribe to sabermetrics or be considered a "stat head" to say it. The answer is right there in front of you.

kittle42
11-20-2010, 08:52 AM
A pitcher cannot control whether he wins a game or not. He CANNOT CONTROL THAT. How do you guys put that much emphasis on the one pitching stat that is most out of the pitcher's control? Explain that to me. The award is on who pitches the best during the season. It's that damn simple. We just saw the sterling example of this with Felix Hernandez this season.

Voodoo, you yourself say, you admit, that Hernandez's numbers scream Cy Young and his peripherals are considerably better than everyone else except for his W-L record. Now what do you think that means, what do you think that says about that stat? Come on man, just put two and two together, you are right there, this close. You don't have to subscribe to sabermetrics or be considered a "stat head" to say it. The answer is right there in front of you.

Wins = Chicago Tough.

SephClone89
11-20-2010, 09:17 AM
Generally speaking, win-loss does reflect the performance of a pitcher over the course of a season. He's obviously pitching well enough to give his team a chance to win. Generally, if someone goes 16-8 it's obvious they've pitched well, and if someone is 3-10 they probably haven't had a great season.

While wins aren't completely useless when it comes to quickly evaluating a pitcher's effectiveness, it's foolish to ignore other statistics in favour of wins in determining something as "important" as the Cy Young award.

EDIT:

Congrats to King Felix, by the way. I was one of many at the epic pitcher's duel between he and Danks in late July. It's always cool to have seen a player during a Cy Young or MVP season.

voodoochile
11-20-2010, 12:10 PM
A pitcher cannot control whether he wins a game or not. He CANNOT CONTROL THAT. How do you guys put that much emphasis on the one pitching stat that is most out of the pitcher's control? Explain that to me. The award is on who pitches the best during the season. It's that damn simple. We just saw the sterling example of this with Felix Hernandez this season.

Voodoo, you yourself say, you admit, that Hernandez's numbers scream Cy Young and his peripherals are considerably better than everyone else except for his W-L record. Now what do you think that means, what do you think that says about that stat? Come on man, just put two and two together, you are right there, this close. You don't have to subscribe to sabermetrics or be considered a "stat head" to say it. The answer is right there in front of you.

CC's numbers do the same and Price even more so.

I've expressed my thoughts on the subject and what I haven't said TDog has - quite well.

And like I said, it's not that big of a deal to me, I just think W-L record should be an active component in the decision. In addition if Felix had been 12-13 I doubt he would have got the award.

Lyle Mouton
11-20-2010, 12:14 PM
And like I said, it's not that big of a deal to me, I just think W-L record should be an active component in the decision. In addition if Felix had been 12-13 I doubt he would have got the award.
That assumption is based on the notion that those voting have the mental capacity of toddlers. Being 13-12 or 12-13 is irrelevant when you've performed at the extraordinarily high level Felix did in 2010. He was miles better than CC and David Price.

The votes show that.

voodoochile
11-20-2010, 04:42 PM
That assumption is based on the notion that those voting have the mental capacity of toddlers. Being 13-12 or 12-13 is irrelevant when you've performed at the extraordinarily high level Felix did in 2010. He was miles better than CC and David Price.

The votes show that.

Miles better? I disagree with that statement completely.

Bob Roarman
11-20-2010, 05:00 PM
CC's numbers do the same and Price even more so.

I've expressed my thoughts on the subject and what I haven't said TDog has - quite well.

And like I said, it's not that big of a deal to me, I just think W-L record should be an active component in the decision. In addition if Felix had been 12-13 I doubt he would have got the award.

Voodoo, voodoo, the guy had 30 quality starts. 13 of those were his wins. 17 were either no decisions or losses. In those 17 games he pitched excellently, he pitched at a Cy Young award level, he couldn't have pitched much better. I say "much better" because in his 13 wins he pitched with an amazing 0.84 ERA, but that's completely unrealistic to expect over the entire year.

He had only 1.41 runs of support in those 17 games and a bullpen that gave up over 30 earned runs in those same games. Those are the reasons he doesn't have more wins, two factors COMPLETELY out of his control. How do you not realize that? You have to look at each pitcher on a case by case basis. You have to take into account something like what the Mariners had for "offense" this season.

You honestly think a 1 game swing where he would be 12-13 he wouldn't have won? A freaking 1 game swing is the difference between him getting 21 out of 28 1st place votes and him not winning at all? What? That alone should tell you how much overblown unnecessary emphasis you guys are putting on the W-L stat, the most deceiving stat for pitchers. How can you not see that?

TDog
11-20-2010, 06:11 PM
A pitcher cannot control whether he wins a game or not. He CANNOT CONTROL THAT. How do you guys put that much emphasis on the one pitching stat that is most out of the pitcher's control? Explain that to me. The award is on who pitches the best during the season. It's that damn simple. We just saw the sterling example of this with Felix Hernandez this season.

Voodoo, you yourself say, you admit, that Hernandez's numbers scream Cy Young and his peripherals are considerably better than everyone else except for his W-L record. Now what do you think that means, what do you think that says about that stat? Come on man, just put two and two together, you are right there, this close. You don't have to subscribe to sabermetrics or be considered a "stat head" to say it. The answer is right there in front of you.

A pitcher has more control over whether he wins a game than many people here accept. Pitchers don't do their job in a vacuum or in a video game. How many runs they allow often is affected by how many runs their team scores. It isn't as if the Mariners were shut out in every game Hernandez didn't win. In one of two shutout losses, Hernandez game up three runs failing to get out of the seventh, achieving an arbitrary and meaningless quality start. He only lost one 1-0 game (Ferguson Jenkins lost five 1-0 games in 1968, still won 20 games and got no NL Cy Young votes that year, no even a third-place vote).

Ultimately, the award is defined by the people who vote on them. The Cy Young Award used to be about winning and pitching extremely well. If you're the best pitcher in the league, it's irrelevant if you struggle to win. I don't mind Sabathia missing the bonus that, no doubt, was written into his contract, but if Mark Buehrle had won 22 games with an ERA a bit over 3, I would be disappointed that he lost it to a pitcher who put up stats instead of winning games.

I don't know that the voters have gone over to considering ERA and strikeouts more important than wins in their definition of the award, though. Hernandez actually was a big winner in 2009 and probably deserved the Cy Young Award a year earlier. It wouldn't surprise me if this year's vote was, if not a make-up call, a recognition a year late for someone more likeable than other candidates. If Hernandez had gone 13-12 in 2009 instead of 19-5, I doubt he would have won the 2010 award.

Lyle Mouton
11-20-2010, 06:29 PM
A pitcher has more control over whether he wins a game than many people here accept. Pitchers don't do their job in a vacuum or in a video game. How many runs they allow often is affected by how many runs their team scores. It isn't as if the Mariners were shut out in every game Hernandez didn't win. In one of two shutout losses, Hernandez game up three runs failing to get out of the seventh, achieving an arbitrary and meaningless quality start. He only lost one 1-0 game (Ferguson Jenkins lost five 1-0 games in 1968, still won 20 games and got no NL Cy Young votes that year, no even a third-place vote).

Ultimately, the award is defined by the people who vote on them. The Cy Young Award used to be about winning and pitching extremely well. If you're the best pitcher in the league, it's irrelevant if you struggle to win. I don't mind Sabathia missing the bonus that, no doubt, was written into his contract, but if Mark Buehrle had won 22 games with an ERA a bit over 3, I would be disappointed that he lost it to a pitcher who put up stats instead of winning games.

I don't know that the voters have gone over to considering ERA and strikeouts more important than wins in their definition of the award, though. Hernandez actually was a big winner in 2009 and probably deserved the Cy Young Award a year earlier. It wouldn't surprise me if this year's vote was, if not a make-up call, a recognition a year late for someone more likeable than other candidates. If Hernandez had gone 13-12 in 2009 instead of 19-5, I doubt he would have won the 2010 award.
And yet, he was a better pitcher in 2010 than 2009, despite the record.

Bob Roarman
11-20-2010, 06:40 PM
A pitcher has more control over whether he wins a game than many people here accept. Pitchers don't do their job in a vacuum or in a video game. How many runs they allow often is affected by how many runs their team scores. It isn't as if the Mariners were shut out in every game Hernandez didn't win. In one of two shutout losses, Hernandez game up three runs failing to get out of the seventh, achieving an arbitrary and meaningless quality start. He only lost one 1-0 game (Ferguson Jenkins lost five 1-0 games in 1968, still won 20 games and got no NL Cy Young votes that year, no even a third-place vote).

Ultimately, the award is defined by the people who vote on them. The Cy Young Award used to be about winning and pitching extremely well. If you're the best pitcher in the league, it's irrelevant if you struggle to win. I don't mind Sabathia missing the bonus that, no doubt, was written into his contract, but if Mark Buehrle had won 22 games with an ERA a bit over 3, I would be disappointed that he lost it to a pitcher who put up stats instead of winning games.

I don't know that the voters have gone over to considering ERA and strikeouts more important than wins in their definition of the award, though. Hernandez actually was a big winner in 2009 and probably deserved the Cy Young Award a year earlier. It wouldn't surprise me if this year's vote was, if not a make-up call, a recognition a year late for someone more likeable than other candidates. If Hernandez had gone 13-12 in 2009 instead of 19-5, I doubt he would have won the 2010 award.

He didn't win it last year because he wasn't the best pitcher. Grienke was. Hernandez was second best, as it showed in the vote. And ERA and strikeouts do tell you more about a pitcher and how well he pitched during the season than his W-L record alone does. This is common sense.

TDog
11-20-2010, 09:55 PM
And yet, he was a better pitcher in 2010 than 2009, despite the record.

He had better stats, but this year he lost more games that he should have won.

Baseball isn't about the stats. It's about winning. Stats, except for scores, don't tell you who won. Stats don't predict who will win. Stats don't tell you who will do what in a given situation.

Different baseball beat writers probably voted on the Cy Young Award last year. At least they used to rotate who voted on which awards. I haven't seen any published list of the voters for each award. (The Sporting New used to publish it, but The Sporting News began ignoring baseball when Times-Mirror buyout and hasn't been worth reading in years.) It is possible that this year's voters would have voted the award to Hernandez this year. It also is possible that this year's voters wouldn't have voted the award to Hernandez this year if he had won the award last year.

Bob Roarman
11-21-2010, 08:34 AM
He had better stats, but this year he lost more games that he should have won.

I hate repeating myself, I really do, but you must have missed that giant post I made explaining, in detail, just how completely false this notion is. Because that's the only explanation to you still posting things like this. 17 games Hernandez pitched in he got either a loss or a no decision. In those 17 games he had a 2.20 ERA, over 120 IP with a WHIP of 1.14. That's how great he pitched in games in which he either LOST or didn't get a decision. In those games, he was supported by an average of 1.41 runs. I'm sorry, but no one can pitch with a sub 1.00 ERA the entire season in order to win enough games and to compensate for one of the worst offenses of the past decade to fit into your insane, incomplete measure of what makes a great pitcher. He did his best for you Tdog, because in all 13 of his wins he did pitch with sub 1.00 ERA. But in your world, I guess that's just not good enough.

Baseball isn't about the stats. It's about winning. Stats, except for scores, don't tell you who won. Stats don't predict who will win. Stats don't tell you who will do what in a given situation.

Are you sure you're watching baseball? If there is one sport that is the most stat oriented, even without going into sabermetric land, it's baseball. By a long shot. It's not even close. The pitching stats are telling you exactly what the player did, not what he might do, but WHAT HE ALREADY DID. I mean....really?

kittle42
11-21-2010, 10:44 AM
I'm waiting for the post where TDog rants about how the MVP should be awarded to the player with the most game-winning RBI.

voodoochile
11-21-2010, 12:29 PM
I'm waiting for the post where TDog rants about how the MVP should be awarded to the player with the most game-winning RBI.

Wins are not a stat they award to hitters. Though there are many who claim runs and RBI should be ignored by people who evaluate players because they are too team dependent.

Lyle Mouton
11-21-2010, 12:32 PM
Wins are not a stat they award to hitters. Though there are many who claim runs and RBI should be ignored by people who evaluate players because they are too team dependent.
Less team dependent than pitching wins, however.

voodoochile
11-21-2010, 12:46 PM
Less team dependent than pitching wins, however.

And yet something in both cases that the individual does control at least part of the reason they are awarded the stat.

You can take this to a ludicrous extreme:

Pitchers don't really yield hits because if the batter doesn't swing or the defense is in different locations the hits wouldn't have happened.

Hitters don't really get hits it's all because the pitcher threw a meatball or the defense was poorly placed.

RBI's in late blowout games don't really affect the outcome, so why count them?

A HR down the RF line into the porch at Boston would only be a double or an out anywhere else, so lets not count it.

Where do we draw the line on which stats are relevant and which ones aren't?

Daver
11-21-2010, 12:49 PM
Wins are not a stat they award to hitters. Though there are many who claim runs and RBI should be ignored by people who evaluate players because they are too team dependent.

They used to track game winning hits, up until right around the advent of free agency.

voodoochile
11-21-2010, 01:00 PM
They used to track game winning hits, up until right around the advent of free agency.

They did try to bring it back with the GW RBI later but the concept was a failure. Then they modified it and brought it back again in the last few years I think and it's at least in theory a better stat, but no one pays attention to it.

Walkoff hits are a different issue, but even the best players get so few chances at them every year. And again, if the other team merely had better closer it wouldn't matter anyway, so we shouldn't worry about that stuff. It's all team and situation dependent. No one does anything on their own or has any control over any stat...

Lyle Mouton
11-21-2010, 04:03 PM
And yet something in both cases that the individual does control at least part of the reason they are awarded the stat.

You can take this to a ludicrous extreme:

Pitchers don't really yield hits because if the batter doesn't swing or the defense is in different locations the hits wouldn't have happened.

Hitters don't really get hits it's all because the pitcher threw a meatball or the defense was poorly placed.

RBI's in late blowout games don't really affect the outcome, so why count them?

A HR down the RF line into the porch at Boston would only be a double or an out anywhere else, so lets not count it.

Where do we draw the line on which stats are relevant and which ones aren't?
Common sense tends to yield sensible conclusions. There's really no use in attributing a win or a loss to a pitcher when there are so many better ways of tracking performance.

And for a number of your ludicrous extremes, there are people who analyze those situations. They don't formulate statistics necessarily, they just study (with a good deal of success) the placement of defenders, HR distance, etc.

Bob Roarman
11-21-2010, 04:52 PM
And yet something in both cases that the individual does control at least part of the reason they are awarded the stat.

You can take this to a ludicrous extreme:

Pitchers don't really yield hits because if the batter doesn't swing or the defense is in different locations the hits wouldn't have happened.

Hitters don't really get hits it's all because the pitcher threw a meatball or the defense was poorly placed.

RBI's in late blowout games don't really affect the outcome, so why count them?

A HR down the RF line into the porch at Boston would only be a double or an out anywhere else, so lets not count it.

Where do we draw the line on which stats are relevant and which ones aren't?

It's not that the W-L record is completely and utterly irrelevant, it's, like a lot of stats, best used and interpreted with the full body of work from the player. It's not to be used as the kind of stand alone barometer, an end all number that you and Tdog and others seem to put so much importance and emphasis on, because on it's own, it can be the most deceiving stat for a pitcher. I mean, you said that if there was a one game difference in his record, he doesn't even win the award. He goes from a landslide victory to not even winning the award based on a ONE GAME difference in your baseball world. Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds?

You look at the W-L record in conjunction with his other pitching stats in order to get a complete view of how well or poorly he pitched over the season. And in Hernandez's case looking at the number of wins he attained gets you no where in the vicinity of realizing how well he pitched.

voodoochile
11-21-2010, 05:03 PM
It's not that the W-L record is completely and utterly irrelevant, it's, like a lot of stats, best used and interpreted with the full body of work from the player. It's not to be used as the kind of stand alone barometer, an end all number that you and Tdog and others seem to put so much importance and emphasis on, because on it's own, it can be the most deceiving stat for a pitcher. I mean, you said that if there was a one game difference in his record, he doesn't even win the award. He goes from a landslide victory to not even winning the award based on a ONE GAME difference in your baseball world. Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds?

You look at the W-L record in conjunction with his other pitching stats in order to get a complete view of how well or poorly he pitched over the season. And in Hernandez's case looking at the number of wins he attained gets you no where in the vicinity of realizing how well he pitched.

Okay then what percentage of the Cy Young evaluation should be based on W/L record?

If there is indeed a component of W/L that is entirely on the pitcher than CC and Price both have arguments that they had better seasons than Felix.

But this is getting circular so I'll attempt to bow out.

Daver
11-21-2010, 05:06 PM
They did try to bring it back with the GW RBI later but the concept was a failure. Then they modified it and brought it back again in the last few years I think and it's at least in theory a better stat, but no one pays attention to it.


Probably because much like the hold and the save, it is a worthless stat, unless it is used in contract negotiations.

Bob Roarman
11-21-2010, 05:44 PM
Okay then what percentage of the Cy Young evaluation should be based on W/L record?

If there is indeed a component of W/L that is entirely on the pitcher than CC and Price both have arguments that they had better seasons than Felix.

But this is getting circular so I'll attempt to bow out.

There isn't, that's the entire point, he can't control whether or not he gets the win no matter how well he pitches so why hang any kind of fixed percentage on it? I can't say that there's NEVER been, or never will be, an instance or an example of a player that succeeds to an extent that is miles above and beyond what his team is, like it was mentioned with Carlton's 27 victory season on a last place team. I think he had something like 9 or 10 wins with 2 runs or less of support. But those examples are so greatly few and far between to where it becomes an anomaly, something that cannot be realistically compared to and/or expected. And that definitely wasn't the case of either Price or Sabathia this season.

So unless something like that happens, which if that's the case that pitcher most likely has most or all of the other pitching stats in his favor anyway and it becomes a moot point, there shouldn't be any expressed "percentage" of importance to the W-L record. Not when the judgment is based on an individual's performance. In that judgment, the W-L record should be used and seen as just like I said, as a complimentary, not as definitive, the pitcher who wins the most isn't always the best because, again, they can't control whether they win or not, only how well they pitch and THAT is what they are being judged on with this award, regardless of who it's named after and what he's known for. I don't know why that's such a hard concept to grasp.

Daver
11-21-2010, 05:53 PM
There isn't, that's the entire point, he can't control whether or not he gets the win no matter how well he pitches.


Freddy Garcia lost a 2 hitter because he hung a curveball that got pounded into the cheap seats at the Twinkie dome in the bottom of the ninth inning. Pitchers do have some control depending on the circumstances, which is why the game is played on grass and not paper.

Bob Roarman
11-21-2010, 06:00 PM
There's a two way street on that argument Dave.

Daver
11-21-2010, 06:48 PM
There's a two way street on that argument Dave.

From what perspective did Freddy not have control over a win or a loss?

kittle42
11-21-2010, 07:22 PM
From what perspective did Freddy not have control over a win or a loss?

A pitcher has almost total control over whether he wins a game if it is the 9th inning and he's still in the game with a lead.

One scenario. Cherry-picking.

Daver
11-21-2010, 07:43 PM
A pitcher has almost total control over whether he wins a game if it is the 9th inning and he's still in the game with a lead.

One scenario. Cherry-picking.

Then perhaps the propellerheads need to stop painting with their broad brush.

doublem23
11-21-2010, 07:46 PM
From what perspective did Freddy not have control over a win or a loss?

You are aware that you can't win a game when your team scores 0 runs, right?

Daver
11-21-2010, 07:55 PM
You are aware that you can't win a game when your team scores 0 runs, right?

How did the score make Freddy hang a curveball over the heart of the plate?

The other team can't win without scoring runs either.

mzh
11-21-2010, 07:59 PM
How did the score make Freddy hang a curveball over the heart of the plate?

The other team can't win without scoring runs either.
Even if you get the Loss, losing the game 1-0 on 2 hits is still almost as much you can ask from a pitcher. He lost the game, but it is still a damn good pitching performance. If a pitcher theoretically lost 32 1-0 games, but was 0-32/1.00/300 IP is it his fault that he lost 32 games?

Totally hypothetical, but again it's a 2 way street.

doublem23
11-21-2010, 08:08 PM
How did the score make Freddy hang a curveball over the heart of the plate?

The other team can't win without scoring runs either.

I don't have the patience to argue this utterly absurd point with you, but I'd still like you to detail for me how a pitcher is supposed to earn a win in a game when his team has scored 0 runs. I could use a hearty laugh. I understand that perhaps he has a hand in giving himself a loss (still, a pretty moronic conclusion to lay that entirely at the feet of his pitcher when 9 other guys also failed to do their job, as well), but this line of thinking makes less than no sense. It's hit the point now of implicitly being stupid, as if it's too hard to come to grips with the fact that this one time the "propellerheads" have made a pretty fair point, yet we're going to argue this one in the ground even at the cost of looking completely foolish, BECAUSE WE CAN'T LET THEM WIN... DUUUUNNN DUUUUNNN DUN DUUUUUUUUNNNNN [INSERT LIGHTNING AND THUNDER]

Daver
11-21-2010, 08:27 PM
Even if you get the Loss, losing the game 1-0 on 2 hits is still almost as much you can ask from a pitcher. He lost the game, but it is still a damn good pitching performance. If a pitcher theoretically lost 32 1-0 games, but was 0-32/1.00/300 IP is it his fault that he lost 32 games?

Totally hypothetical, but again it's a 2 way street.

You have to be a damn good pitcher to lose 20 games.

doublem23
11-21-2010, 08:33 PM
You have to be a damn good pitcher to lose 20 games.

Yeah, Mike Maroth, what a ****ing superstar.

Daver
11-21-2010, 09:02 PM
Yeah, Mike Maroth, what a ****ing superstar.

Losing twenty games means one of two things, either you were good enough to win at any given time, or the team had no one with a pulse to replace you with. It is a rare occasion that a starter is allowed to lose twenty games unless he is pitching well.

voodoochile
11-21-2010, 10:14 PM
There isn't, that's the entire point, he can't control whether or not he gets the win no matter how well he pitches so why hang any kind of fixed percentage on it? I can't say that there's NEVER been, or never will be, an instance or an example of a player that succeeds to an extent that is miles above and beyond what his team is, like it was mentioned with Carlton's 27 victory season on a last place team. I think he had something like 9 or 10 wins with 2 runs or less of support. But those examples are so greatly few and far between to where it becomes an anomaly, something that cannot be realistically compared to and/or expected. And that definitely wasn't the case of either Price or Sabathia this season.

So unless something like that happens, which if that's the case that pitcher most likely has most or all of the other pitching stats in his favor anyway and it becomes a moot point, there shouldn't be any expressed "percentage" of importance to the W-L record. Not when the judgment is based on an individual's performance. In that judgment, the W-L record should be used and seen as just like I said, as a complimentary, not as definitive, the pitcher who wins the most isn't always the best because, again, they can't control whether they win or not, only how well they pitch and THAT is what they are being judged on with this award, regardless of who it's named after and what he's known for. I don't know why that's such a hard concept to grasp.

I completely disagree with that statement. I think Daver has said it well.

And no a pitcher cannot control how many runs his team scores (even more so in the AL) but he can control how many runs he gives up.

Daver's point was missed. If a pitcher doesn't give up a run he cannot get a loss. He may not get the win but he won't get the loss either. It's not win or lose. It's win, lose or no decision.

Bob Roarman
11-21-2010, 10:37 PM
Or as I said, a pitcher can only control how well he pitches. Same thing. Any way you want to approach this it favors Hernandez. All you have to do is again look at those 17 games where he was credited with 8 losses and 9 no decisions. He wasn't the problem, his stat line in those games speaks for itself. He was backed up by an offense that scored not even a run and a half per game and a bullpen that gave up over 30 earned runs after he exited. You must take into account these factors.

Daver
11-21-2010, 10:44 PM
I completely disagree with that statement. I think Daver has said it well.

And no a pitcher cannot control how many runs his team scores (even more so in the AL) but he can control how many runs he gives up.

Daver's point was missed. If a pitcher doesn't give up a run he cannot get a loss. He may not get the win but he won't get the loss either. It's not win or lose. It's win, lose or no decision.

It wasn't missed, it was ignored.

Bob Roarman
11-21-2010, 10:58 PM
Dude I posted an entire breakdown of Hernandez's starts and more to the point, a breakdown of how he pitched in games in which he awarded a no decision or a loss and how the offense and bullpen fared in those games. And when questions or doubts and ungrounded statements arose on those EXACT parameters I repeated and repeated those stats over and over like IN THE POST RIGHT ABOVE YOURS. Who's getting ignored again?

Lyle Mouton
11-21-2010, 11:28 PM
You're just wasting your time.

kittle42
11-22-2010, 12:41 PM
Daver's point was missed. If a pitcher doesn't give up a run he cannot get a loss. He may not get the win but he won't get the loss either. It's not win or lose. It's win, lose or no decision.

Irrelevant, almost. Handing a Cy Young to a pitcher who was 8-1 with 26 no-decisions is as "out of the ordinary" as giving one to a guy who is 13-12 when there are other candidates with 20+ wins.

kittle42
11-22-2010, 12:43 PM
Dude I posted an entire breakdown of Hernandez's starts and more to the point, a breakdown of how he pitched in games in which he awarded a no decision or a loss and how the offense and bullpen fared in those games. And when questions or doubts and ungrounded statements arose on those EXACT parameters I repeated and repeated those stats over and over like IN THE POST RIGHT ABOVE YOURS. Who's getting ignored again?

It would require more than a short, one-to-two-sentence response using "propellerhead" or implying the ignorance or idiocy of other poster(s). So I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for it.

Lyle Mouton
11-22-2010, 12:45 PM
It would require more than a short, one-to-two-sentence response using "propellerhead" or implying the ignorance or idiocy of other poster(s). So I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for it.
Haha. This x1000000.