In the spirit of “Blind Resume,” and at least partly inspired by what I like to call the evolution of Cy Young voters, we bring you the second installment of “Cy Young Hindsight.”
What we do here is anonymously present the top candidates for the Cy Young award from a prior year, and ask you to tell us who you’d vote for. If you recognize the statistics for any of the candidates, please refrain from guessing or suggesting who they are, or the year in question.
Here are the top six in the voting from the Cy Young award in question:
Pitcher A:
W-L 18-5, ERA 3.79, ERA+ 111, IP 202, SO 143, HR 22 (0.98 per 9 IP), WHIP 1.218, SO/BB 2.75, CG 1, ShO 0, Team W-L% .574
Pitcher B:
W-L 7-4, Sv 43, ERA 1.38, ERA+ 308, IP 78 1/3, SO 80, HR 2 (0.23 per 9 IP), WHIP 0.868, SO/BB 4.44, Team W-L% .586
Pitcher C:
W-L 21-8, ERA 3.48, ERA+ 122, IP 222 2/3, SO 157, HR 26 (1.05 per 9 IP), WHIP 1.159, SO/BB 3.65, CG 2, ShO 0, Team W-L% .586
Pitcher D:
W-L 16-8, ERA 3.12, ERA+ 144, IP 236 2/3, SO 149, HR 20 (0.76 per 9 IP), WHIP 1.183, SO/BB 3.73, CG 3, ShO 1, Team W-L% .611
Pitcher E:
W-L 16-7, ERA 2.87, ERA+ 155, IP 231 2/3, SO 238, HR 22 (0.85 per 9 IP), WHIP 0.971, SO/BB 5.29, CG 3, ShO 2, Team W-L% .512
Pitcher F:
W-L 18-10, ERA 3.50, ERA+ 128, IP 221, SO 115, HR 26 (1.06 per 9 IP), WHIP 1.172, SO/BB 2.45, CG 3, ShO 3, Team W-L% .611
Pitcher B is a relief pitcher. Pitchers B, C, D and F were all on teams that made the playoffs. Pitchers D and F were teammates. Pitchers B and C were not.
Glossary
ERA+ is park-adjusted and league-adjusted ERA, expressed as a percentage compared to the average pitcher (100 is average, above 100 is better than average).
WHIP – baserunners allowed per inning (walks plus hits divided by innings pitched).
SO/BB – strikeout-to-walk ratio.
CG – complete games.
ShO – shutouts.
Team W-L% is the won-loss percentage of the pitcher’s team.
Again, the idea here is to tell us who you think should have won the award, rather than guessing who did or revealing the identity of the candidates.
Who gets your Cy Young vote?
I’d give the award to pitcher B … the closer. 43 saves and 7 wins … with an awesome ERA. I know saves have been cheapened over the years, but if you can wildly work with me to loosely imagine that “every 3 saves equals 1 win”, this guy essentially had 21-22 wins … again if loosely trying to compare to a starting pitcher. In raw terms, he had a hand in 50 of 95 wins for a playoff team … what a great contribution!
Among the starters, I like pitcher E the best … great ERA and he went 16-7 for a team that was just so-so. But he’s second on my ballot to B.
Pitcher C. I’m always a sucker for the # of wins. I think closers are MVP before they are Cy Young. I think the Cy Young is (should be) more for starters, but then that’s opinion, but as noted earlier, I think closers are more valuable. They impact on more games. E woud be my # 2 choice, because of his ERA. B would not be until 3rd on my ballot.
I am going with E. Of the starters, he keeps the ball in the park better than anyone – according to ERA+. He is second most in IP and backed it up with plenty of Ks. And his WHIP is the lowest among the starters.
I just remembered that last time, I told you who finished first in what categories, so here’s that info:
Wins:
1. Pitcher C
2. Pitchers A & F
5. Pitchers D & E
ERA:
1. Pitcher G (finished 7th in the voting)
2. Pitcher E
3. Pitcher D
4. Pitcher F
7. Pitcher C
Strikeouts:
1. Pitcher E
(none of the other candidates finished in top 10)
Saves:
3. Pitcher B
I’m going with Pitcher C. I don’t like releivers for Cy Young. Not enough innings pitched and not as much control over the win / loss for his team on that day. If a starting pitcher has a bad outing, his team is likely doomed. If a releiver is throwing poorly, this is recognized after 1 or 2 batters. He can simply be taken out and replaced by another releiver.
As with Pete, I appreciate the wins and win % compared to losses. To win, you simply need to outpitch the other pitcher on that day regardless of your team’s offense. If you are better than the other guy (i.e. let up fewer runs) you win. Unless the other pitcher’s wins were so low because their team literally scored 0 runs every other time he pitched.
I do like D though. However, 5 more wins by 1 pitcher is a big deal if you think about it. If 5 starting pitchers had 5 more wins than the starting pitchers for another team, that equals 25 more wins for the team for the year. An huge margin. (that’s based on that pitcher throwing 20% of the team’s games)
Just some random thoughts at the end of a long day…
Interesting perspectives, guys. Pete and Dan are on the side that favors wins, and I think when one guy is the only 20-game winner in the league, it really stands out. That’s why I was surprised this year when the standards seemed to change, and a 13-game winner won out over a 21-game winner. That said, I’m not saying it was the wrong decision, just different than I expected.
Wally and Casey are not swayed by the 20-game winner. They favor the sheer dominance of a closer who had an exceptional year, and a starter who managed to win more than twice as often as he lost for a team that was just over .500.
So, we have two votes for C, one for B and one for E. I’m going to wait a little longer to share my thoughts on the candidates. Hopefully, there are a few more people who want to chime in on this one.
Gulp… I am with Casey AND Wally on this one…
My vote goes to Pitcher E who appears to be borderline dominant. Not only was a he a workhorse, he kept the ball in the ballpark – as Casey already noted. His strikeout to walk ratio is impressive.
In my mind he is best pitcher on this list and that is what the Cy Young Award is..
A close second is Pitcher B.. I am not above giving a CY Young award to a reliever, but he has to be dominant. Pitcher B is just that.. He doesn’t beat Pitcher E though.
I’d vote for E. The reliever has nice numbers, but he’s a reliever.
That’s three votes for E, two for C, and one for B. I would have voted for E too, but of course, I have the benefit of knowing the names. Wally almost swayed me in favor of B, but I really thinks it takes a season like Eric Gagne’s 2003 to win the Cy. Besides, Pitcher B has had better seasons than this one. 😉
On that note, it’s time to reveal the names:
Pitcher C is Bartolo Colon, the 2005 AL Cy Young winner.
Pitcher B is Mariano Rivera (second), who has never won a Cy Young.
Pitcher E is Johan Santana (third), who would have won three consecutive AL Cy Young awards if not for the fact he was robbed in 2005.
Pitcher A is Cliff Lee (fourth), winner of the 2008 AL Cy Young.
Pitcher D is Mark Buehrle (fifth). This was the closest he’s come to a Cy Young.
Pitcher F is Jon Garland (sixth). This was the closest he’ll ever come to a Cy Young.
Uh … Bill … the reliever (Rivera) has AWESOME numbers. “Nice”? If I were a manager knowing before the season that I could have one and only one of those 6 pitchers on my squad for that season, I’d take the 43 saves, 7 wins and 1.38 ERA in a heartbeat.
Yeah Wally, I know the numbers were awesome, it’s just from my perspective, I have a hard time tossing an award to a guy who tosses for an inning or so. I would prefer a separate award be given for relievers, call it whatever, the Sutter award or whatever.
And no need to jump all over me, just my view. And as for ‘nice,’ well, sarcasm doesn’t travel on the internet well, nor tone, one of the reasons it drives me crazy.
How about the Mariano Rivera award? The Sutter award…puhleeze. 😉
Well, I was just trying to pull a name from wayback. I still have a cold, so I’m not firing on all cylinders, and that was the name that popped into my noggin.
Fair enough, Bill … didn’t mean to appear to jump on you. 😉
Anyway … times haven changed. IMO, being the closer on MLB teams these days is a really tough and important job. Harder than being a starter who pitches maybe every 5th day and is on a predictable schedule, not only week-by week, but on gameday as well. As for the closer, he could pitch 4 times in a week … and going into a game is never really sure when he’s gonna be called upon. Because they pitch so often, these guys must have quick recovery time.
True … they don’t throw 200+ innings, but the top closers in the game will get near 80 … and in practically all of those instances, the game is close and the pressure is on … they have to be practically perfect … or at least that’s the expectation for the role …. “save the win and don’t mess it up!” “Oh … and see if you can get out of this 2 on and nobody out jam … here’s the ball.” If the closer gives up a run every 3 innings, he’s a bum (see Bobby Jenks) … whereas a starter who yields a run every 3 innings is lavished with near hero praise.
To me, the Cy Young is still about wins … but saving wins is really the tougher task. When a closer has the type of season Rivera had … having a direct hand in 50 of his teams wins (43+7) … that’s a winning pitcher … and he was the best one out there that season.
How to compare a closer’s 80 innings to a starter’s 200+ is an interesting discussion. As Wally says, the closer works really hard in every inning, and the starter has to pace himself. But, can we assume that the closer works, on average, 2 1/2 times as hard as the starter, thus making his 80 innings equal a starter’s 200?
I don’t think so, but one thing I know for sure…if you had Mariano Rivera on your team, and he was more valuable pitching 120 innings rather than 80, you’d run him out there for 120, wouldn’t you?
Now, we’ll never know for certain if the way pitchers in general are being used is coddling them or not, but I have to assume that 80 innings is a tough workload for a closer. So, maybe his innings are 2 1/2 times more valuable than a starter’s, in which case, maybe relievers should get more consideration for the Cy Young award than they do.
Another thing’s for certain…times have changed since two relievers won AL MVPs in the ’80s. Otherwise, Mariano Rivera would certainly have a couple.
Oh I don’t disagree about relievers having a tough job, but in a way it’s a different job. It’s kind of like comparing sprinters and marathon runners, who both cover distance, but in different ways. At least the reliever knows roughly the situation he’s coming into, as you say, pressure, game on the line stuff, whereas the starter has more variables to work through, facing the same guys several times, what pitches are working, etc.
I can see arguments for both sides, but I’m an old fart, and see the Cy Young as an award for starters. I can see an award for closers too (but forget the middle guys). I just have a hard time giving the Cy Young to a guy that comes in for just the 9th (roughly, you know what I mean).
And Chas, though to me it would seem crass naming the award after Mariano while he is still playing, I’m sure the Yankees would have no problem with it.
Yeah, I wouldn’t name it after him while he’s still playing.There’s not an obvious choice among the old guys, though. I suppose it could be the Hoyt Wilhelm award.
How about another award for setup guys: the Kent Tekulve award?
Actually, maybe it should be the Mike Stanton award. He seems to have the lowest ratio of Games Finished to Relief Appearances among the all-time leaders in games pitched.
The problem with rewarding setup men is very simple. A save means that you won the game, a hold doesn’t!
I’m really just goofing around with the idea of an award for a setup man, but since you brought it up…the hold is a flawed statistic (you can actually get a hold and a loss in the same game, ask me how), but if a pitcher does his job, that’s all that can be asked of him.