How could I suggest such a thing?
While I’m not trying to imply that Roy Halladay isn’t as good as everyone thinks, when it comes to the recent National League Cy Young voting, I do have a bit of a beef.
My complaint is not that Halladay’s season was undeserving of the award. Rather, it’s with the way in which he won it. That is, unanimously.
What I don’t completely understand is how all 32 voters considered him the top choice when there was another candidate who was equally deserving by most measures, and even more deserving by others. That candidate is Adam Wainwright.
Of course I’m not going to make such a statement without backing it up. So, let’s start by looking at the mainstream statistics, the three categories commonly considered the Triple Crown of pitching.
W-L record: Halladay 21-10, Wainwright 20-11
ERA: Wainwright – 2.42, Halladay – 2.44
Strikeouts: Halladay – 219, Wainwright – 213
Pretty even, right? Halladay’s six-strikeout edge and slightly better won-lost record, while playing for a team that won 7% more of its games than Wainwright’s, certainly isn’t justification for the wide margin by which he won the award.
So, let’s take a slightly deeper look. Halladay is lauded for his 7.30 K/BB ratio, and compared to Wainwright’s 3.80, this appears to be a pretty big edge, on the surface. But, taking a closer look, Wainwright actually averaged 8.32 strikeouts per nine innings to Halladay’s 7.86. So, obviously this means Wainwright had a considerably higher walk rate (2.18 to 1.08). However, Halladay made up for this by giving up more hits than Wainwright.
In fact, looking at opponents’ batting statistics versus each pitcher, Halladay yielded a higher batting average (.245 to .224), which effectively canceled out Wainwright’s higher walk rate, as evidenced by their almost identical opponents’ on-base percentages (Wainwright – .274, Halladay – .271). But, Halladay not only got hit harder, he also gave up considerably more home runs (24 to 15). This gives Wainwright a considerable edge in opponents’ slugging percentage (.330 to .373) and OPS (.604 to .645).
Let’s dig a little further and look at a few SABRmetric statistics. I’m providing simplistic explanations regarding each, rather than attempting to explain how each is calculated, which would be quite difficult.
ERC (Component ERA) measures a pitcher’s ERA based on the hits and walks he allowed, rather than actual runs: Wainwright – 2.38, Halladay – 2.69
DIPS ERA (Defense-Independent ERA) attempts to measure a pitcher’s ERA independent of the defense behind him: Wainwright – 2.97, Halladay – 3.09
ERA+ is park-adjusted and league-adjusted ERA (expressed as a percentage relative to the average pitcher): Halladay – 165 (65% better than average), Wainwright – 161 (61% better than average)
As you can see, Wainwright outshines Halladay in two of three SABRmetric measures that attempt to normalize a pitcher’s ERA, one of them by a pretty wide margin.
So, where does Halladay have a clear advantage over Wainwright? Well, he pitched more innings (250 2/3 to 230 1/3), and threw more complete games (9 to 5) and more shutouts (4 to 2). His other considerable edge is in the fact that he’s Roy Halladay.
Is he overrated? Well, not really. But, did he receive preferential treatment in this year’s Cy Young voting due to his reputation? Quite possibly, yes. Did he have a season that was deserving of the award? Of course, but Adam Wainwright was just as, if not more, deserving and how he managed to earn zero first-place votes is a question I can’t possibly answer.
Can anyone else on the pine inform me?
You make a good case for Wainwright, if not for winning, at least for securing a large number of ballots. Maybe Halladay promised better kickbacks to the voters.
Chas – completely agree with you on this. Halladay was certainly deserving of the Cy Young award – I am just baffled that it was completely unanimous.
It is almost like the votes were submitted after his no-hitter in Game 1.
Thanks guys. Yeah, I just woulda thought that there were enough comparisons that favored Wainwright that somebody would have favored him…a St. Louis writer maybe? A Mets beat reporter?
Chas – you bring up a good point there. The market. St. Louis is not the same market as Philadelphia, so who knows the impact of being in a larger market has on the MLB awards.
Certainly has an impact in other areas.
You mean like how Big East schools get so much attention in the rankings because of the number of media people who graduated from Big East schools?
Great stuff Chas.
Chas, what can I say. You make perfect sense. Wainwright should not have won the award. Halladay is certainly deserving. But unanimously? That doesn’t make ANY sense. Did they have CFB’s BCS computers figuring out the votes?
I don’t agree, Pete, that Wainwright should not have won the award. I think it was a tossup, and could just as easily have been spun in his favor as Halladay’s.
Yeah, I think I worded that wrong. What I meant was that it was OK if Wainwright didn’t win, but he certainly was statistically worthy of much more consideration than he got.
As with “most” individual sports awards, it often pays to play for a winner. Philly most certainly was that this year while St Louis was mired in mediocrity. Nonetheless, I agree that Wainwright had a helluva year and quite deserving of consideration. But … to the victors go the spoils.
I don’t disagree with you, Wally, but I bet David Price and CC Sabathia do.
Well said, Pete.
The problem with this post is that we all agree. 🙂
Chas – great breakdown of this. HOw out of touch am I that I had to go, “Adam who?” I think I work too much.
I’ll play Devil’s advocate a little. Why no mention of Halladay’s perfect game and no-hitter in the playoffs? I mean – if you dominate as much as that and then bring along two captivating performances, I would immediately think “yeah – this dude is way deserving.” Someone once said “Take away Nolan Ryan’s no-hitters and strikeouts and he’s just an average pitcher.” DUH! Those accolades kind of make him unforgettable.
So – from my non-baseball perspective, both obviously had great seasons. But Wainwright didn’t do what Halladay did. Can’t ignore the fact the guy did something no one else has done. I know the Cy Young is a season achievement, but as you say, he and Wainwright are neck-and-neck in most categories.
Rey – but isn’t the award for what happens during the season, and doesn’t include the playoffs?
Bill is right. In fact, the voting occurs between the end of the regular season and the start of the playoffs, but the announcement is delayed. So, Halladay’s perfect game could be taken into consideration, but I suspect that his 9 complete games and 5 shutouts (vs. 4 and 2 for Wainwright) were more of a factor…and I’m fine with that.
Thanks Bill and Chas – definitely wasn’t sure of the time frame for voting. If CG and SOs were the difference, certainly one of those CG/SO performances being a perfect game have to influence voters though, right?
Rey, yes I suppose the perfect game could have influenced the voters.
Like I said, I don’t have a problem with any individual who voted for Halladay, whatever the reason, because there are plenty of good ones. So, I guess I don’t have a problem with 32 voters picking Halladay. It’s just that I’m more surprised that not a single person looked at the numbers and said, “I’m giving Wainwright the edge because his base numbers are similar, and I like the fact that he gave up fewer hits and homers than Halladay, and struck out more batters (on a per inning basis). That to me means he was more dominant, and maybe Halladay was a little lucky.” Or, something like that.