Strange Cy Young Choices

[thernkworks]

I've got two great young pitchers on my team; they've both picked up the Cy Young award in the last two years. But the year each was selected for the award seems backward.
I think that Schilling had the best year in 1991 and Glavine the best year in 1992. But Glavine won the award in 1991 and Schilling won the award in 1992.
What do you guys think... Would (or could) the awards be handed out this way in real life? Or is this just the worst example of sometimes unrealistic awards in BM?

[Pavelb1]

I think 1991 is something of a toss-up, but I'm not one of those people who thing W-L's should be tossed out the window. At some point you have to take notice and 22-3 is much more impressive than 18-6, regardless of ERA and BAA...so is it fair? Maybe not. Is it realistic? Certainly, especially for the time period. Also Schilling struck out a ton more people in 92' and walked fewer.

[HoustonGM]

1991 can go either way. I think I may have given it to Glavine on the basis of 20+ more innings, but both were equally deserving.

1992, I think Glavine should've won without a doubt. He pitched 30 more innings and allowed a full run less per 9 innings. And when an award is supposed to be given to the pitcher who PITCHED the best, I don't think you can overlook MORE work with MUCH better pitching.

If we're talking who the BBWAA would've voted for in real life, I think the awards would've gone how they did - Glavine in 1991, and Schilling in 1992 - because Schilling had a prettier won-loss record and the BBWAA prefers to use faulty metrics like that instead of how the pitchers actually pitched

[raifers]

nah, i'm gonna disagree about 1992.
gotta go with that magical 20 win threshold
it is true that glavine pitched better, but he only had 18 wins, while schilling had 22

i have more of a gripe with how all stars and gold gloves are selected =]

[HoustonGM]

nah, i'm gonna disagree about 1992.
gotta go with that magical 20 win threshold
There is nothing magical about 20 wins.


it is true that glavine pitched better, but he only had 18 wins, while schilling had 22
The Cy Young Award is meant to be handed out to the best pitcher. How, then, can you acknowledge that Schilling wasn't the best pitcher, yet still give the award for best pticher to him?


Would you agree with giving Bartolo Colon the Cy Young award in 2005, even though Johan Santana was better in every pitching statistical category except wins?

[Imgran]

Really, the Cy Young isn't about the best pitcher. There's pobably pitchers in baseball who are more skilled than CC this year, but they had an injury
or a down year so they weren't in Cy contention.

Cy Young is about the most successful pitcher in baseball, not the most talented. That's why you count wins.

[etothep]

Really, the Cy Young isn't about the best pitcher. There's pobably pitchers in baseball who are more skilled than CC this year, but they had an injury
or a down year so they weren't in Cy contention.

Cy Young is about the most successful pitcher in baseball, not the most talented. That's why you count wins.

he meant the statistically best pitcher, not the most talented pitcher

and since wins require such other factors as run support and defense, its a horrible factor to measure pitcher success

[CatKnight]

No....it's a horrible measure for pitcher PERFORMANCE. It's a fine measure for pitcher SUCCESS. There's a difference.

Put the best pitcher in baseball on the worst team...figure he goes oh 10 wins, 11 losses, 3.50 ERA. All those numbers are altered by the fact his team sucks...on a good team he could have been 21-5 3.01.

Now, do you really think our 10-11 friend has a CHANCE at the Cy Young, regardless of what his WHIP or DICE are? No. He may have performed well, but he wasn't successful. He wasn't able to turn his team around and bring in enough win shares to make a difference.

[delomir]

Okay, so say Aaron Small makes 30 starts for the Yankees this year with a 5.50 ERA. ARod, Jeter, and company hit incredibly well in his starts, and he goes 30-0, making him the most "successful" pitcher this year while not actually being good. Do you think he deserves the Cy Young?

[Pavelb1]

Okay, so say Aaron Small makes 30 starts for the Yankees this year with a 5.50 ERA. ARod, Jeter, and company hit incredibly well in his starts, and he goes 30-0, making him the most "successful" pitcher this year while not actually being good. Do you think he deserves the Cy Young?

Since every other year such a pitcher would have won the Cy Young hands down?...absolutly.

Btw...even Bill James uses Win-Losses a great deal in his book "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame".

[HoustonGM]

Really, the Cy Young isn't about the best pitcher. There's pobably pitchers in baseball who are more skilled than CC this year, but they had an injury or a down year so they weren't in Cy contention.
Uh, it's for the best pitcher in a given season...


Cy Young is about the most successful pitcher in baseball, not the most talented. That's why you count wins.
Right. That's what I mean by best. The most successful in a given year. ie. The best that year. And that's why you don't look at wins. Because they tell you next to nothing of how good the pitcher pitched.


Since every other year such a pitcher would have won the Cy Young hands down?...absolutly.
That demonstrates the flaw in Cy Young voting. Unforutnately, I do think that such a pitcher would win the Cy Young. But that doesn't mean he SHOULD. Why should he be rewarded with the award for best pitcher for what his offense did?


Btw...even Bill James uses Win-Losses a great deal in his book "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame".
As a way to discuss the Hall of Fame's habits. And he also introduces methods in that book that are better than Win-Losses because he recognizes the flaws in them - like Fibonacci win points.


[Now, do you really think our 10-11 friend has a CHANCE at the Cy Young, regardless of what his WHIP or DICE are? No. He may have performed well, but he wasn't successful. He wasn't able to turn his team around and bring in enough win shares to make a difference.
Win Shares are constructed to strip out as many outside things as possible and put what each player did individually into one number. If that 10-11 pitcher had an increased ERA because the park was more favorable to hitters, Win Shares would adjust for that.

10-11 with a 3.50 ERA isn't likely good enough to win the Cy young. HBut really, with JUST the ERA as a decent measuring stick of his performance, and nothing to compare him to, we really can't say whether or not that pitcher deserves the Cy Young. Would he win it in real life? Probably not. But if every other pitcher had an ERA over 4, maybe he does deserve it. With just two stats from one pitcher in the league, we really can't pass judgment on whether or not he was a deserving Cy young candidate.

Wins are heavily influenced by run support, and I don't think it's right to honor pitchers for what their offense happens to produce for them (or not honor pitchers whose offense doesn't produce for them). Roger Clemens in 2005 had a 1.87 ERA, good for a 226 ERA+. His teammate Andy Pettite had a 2.39 ERA, with a 177 ERA+. They were top 2 in the NL in ERA+. Third was DOntrelle Willis all the way down at 151. Roger Clemens ERA was about a full run better than everyone except Pettite and Willis.

Clemens and Pettite, based on how they actually pitched, were the best two pitchers in the NL. However, Clemens got ridiculously low run support - thus a 13-7 record. Pettite went 17-9, got run support that was a bit better. However, they placed 3rd and 5th in the Cy Young voting, with Pettite only getting 1 vote at all, as a last on the ballot vote. Why? Because Chris Carpenter and Dontrelle Willis got more run support. Chris Carpenter wasn't even as good as Dontrelle Willis in 2005, yet he won. Why? Because his team went 100-62, thus, despite 1 less win than Willis, he had 5 less losses. Willis's team was a mediocore 83-79, so he went 22-10.

The 2005 NL Cy Young voting is Exhibit A in why relying solely on wins-losses is completely backwards in evaluating who the best pitchers in a given year were. Actually, make that Exhibit B. Johan Santana losing to Bartolo Colon in the same year is Exhibit A.

The NL's best pitchers based on Win Shares were in this order:

Roger Clemens (24)
Dontrelle Willis (22)
Andy Pettite (21)
Roy Oswalt (21)
Chris Carpenter (20)

The AL that year:

Johan Santana (23)
Mark Buerhle (22)
Jon Garland (20)
Mariano Rivera (19)
Bartolo Colon (18)

In both leagues, the 5th best pitcher won the Cy Young award, because they had the prettiest Won-Loss record.

[CatKnight]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your argument, Houston... just its practicality. I don't really expect those who vote on the Cy Young to really factor out ballpark data, offensive performance and so forth. Might be nice if they did, but that's probably not happening.

Nor do I expect the media to take it lying down if their 22-5 hero doesn't get picked because most of his victories came off of run support rather than being truly earned.

Going back to OP's complaint, I don't know how BM figures out who won its Cy Young. We could debate whether it made the right call or not, and you're far more of a stathead than I so I'd probably concede the point, but given the two pitchers I think it's a fairly accurate representation of what would happen.

[HoustonGM]

Oh, no doubt. I do think that eventually the voters will look beyond simple win-loss records, and start factoring in things like park factors, and what not, but not anytime soon. Eventually, the writers will be writers who grew up reading Bill James, Baseball Prospectus, The Hardball Times, etc. But, nonetheless, that's a far way off.

I do think that Mogul is coded to simulate the BBWAA's methods, which I would agree is how the game should be coded. As I said in my first post, I think Mogul got it right based on what the BBWAA would do:


If we're talking who the BBWAA would've voted for in real life, I think the awards would've gone how they did - Glavine in 1991, and Schilling in 1992 - because Schilling had a prettier won-loss record and the BBWAA prefers to use faulty metrics like that instead of how the pitchers actually pitched

[thernkworks]

I dunno... aside from all the discussion about how Cy Young awards should be awarded IRL, I think Schilling's 2.55 ERA (not to mention his 241 Ks and 21 Ws) should have won him the Cy Young in '91 and his 3.78 ERA in '92 would have removed him from Cy Young consideration. Both IRL and in BM.

[HoustonGM]

Bartolo Colon had a 3.48 ERA in 2005, 8th in his league and 20th in the majors. Didn't stop the BBWAA from giving him the Cy Young over a guy with more innings, a better walk rate, a way better strikeout rate, and a ERA about half a run less.