CYA Elections – 2017 NL

77 Replies

Dr. Doom here (via Doug) again with an awards-voting post. We’re sticking with the Cy Young, but switching over to the National League.

Remember how there were two candidates in the AL who (at least on paper) stood head-and-shoulders above everyone else? Yeah… get ready for a repeat.

Clayton Kershaw is Clayton Kershaw. He continued to Kershaw. He Kershawed all over the season. Did he miss like 20% of his starts? Yes. Did he still somehow lead the league in wins – yes, with 18. Did he lead the league in ERA? Yes, with a 2.31. Did he lead the league in K:BB? Yeah, of course he did, 6.73. His 180 ERA+ was tops, too. Kershaw was the most efficient pitcher in the NL; was the lack of volume enough of a problem to hold him back?

If so, look at Max Scherzer who was nearly as good as Kershaw, just two wins behind the Dodger ace, Scherzer was also second in ERA (2.51), and a narrow second in ERA+ (177). Unlike Kershaw, Scherzer played his home games in a decidedly hitter-friendly park; but, that didn’t stop him from pacing the NL with a .902 WHIP and an ultra-stingy 5.7 H/9, the latter the 7th best number of all-time. Oh, and Scherzer’s 268 strikeouts were also tops in the league.

Here are some other top candidates:

If there’s a third horse in this race, it’s Stephen Strasburg. Strasburg was third in ERA and ERA+, with marks of 2.52 and 176 respectively, and also third in FIP with 1.015. He allowed the fewest homers in the NL. Strasburg has not, perhaps, become the pitcher we were promised, but he’s become a force.
Gio Gonzalez, the third Nats’ “ace”, was just about as good, with a 15-9 record and 2.96 ERA that might get it done in a lot of other years. Gonzalez’s weaknesses (a lower strikeout rate and weaker FIP numbers) perhaps don’t cut it as much in today’s analysis; there’s an argument there, too, but it’s a case that I’d be interested to read.
Zack Greinke had an “up” season in 2017. When Greinke is on, he’s as good as anyone in baseball. He doesn’t outrank any of the top candidates in any significant category, but he’s a very solid down-ballot choice.
Robbie Ray had his breakout year in 2017. 4th-best ERA (2.89) and ERA+ (166). He struck out the 3rd-most batters (218).
And here’s my shameless plug as a Brewers fan for Jimmy Nelson, who was shockingly good. Third-best FIP (3.05); sixth-best K:BB (4.15). Only Strasburg allowed fewer homers.
If you’re looking for others, there’s a fascinating Jeff Samardzija argument; Jacob DeGrom had a really interesting season, too; and Aaron Nola is young and plays for a terrible team.

I’d be interested to hear whoever else you’re interested in. Can’t wait to see what you all have to say!

DIRECTIONS: Please list 5 players on your Cy Young ballot in a NEW comment below (ballots with fewer than 5 candidates will be thrown out; I ask for a new comment because it’s easy to lose one if it’s in a reply, especially since we got rid of numbered comments). Ballots will be scored as per BBWAA scoring (7-4-3-2-1). Strategic voting is discouraged, though that’s unenforceable, so please just don’t do it, as the goal here is to (somewhat) mimic the BBWAA process. The post will be live for about a week; I will comment shortly after the post goes live to tell you when ballots are due. Please discuss and vote whenever you’d like, but there will be NO vote changes, so don’t vote until you’re sure you’re ready!

0 0 votes

Article Rating

77 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Author

Doug

7 years ago

Two of the six H/9 seasons better than Scherzer’s belong to Nolan Ryan, the all-time career leader in H/9. What’s notable about those two seasons is that they were separated by 19 years, at age 25 and 44. Of those two campaigns, Ryan had better marks in WHIP, ERA+ and SO/9 at age 44, his third straight season leading the majors in H/9 and SO/9. Ryan topped 5 WAR as a 44 year-old, the oldest pitcher to do so, and the only hurler with three 5 WAR seasons aged 40+.

Dr. Doom

7 years ago

Reply to Doug

Nolan Ryan’s CAREER H/9 would rank #151 of all-time SINGLE SEASON H/9 numbers. It’s a pretty remarkable achievement. Of course, he was walking a lot of guys. The difference between Ryan’s 2795 career walks and #2 Steve Carlton’s 1833 is the same as the difference between Carlton and 181st place on the all-time list. If you add up the total walks issued by the THREE active players with the most walks allowed (CC Sabathia – 1009, Bartolo Colon – 923, Ubaldo Jimenez – 848), you’re at 2780 – still shy of Ryan.

Dr. Doom

7 years ago

Since the other election is still going on for another day, let’s keep this open all the way through next Sunday night – 12/3, 11:59:59 PM. Happy voting!

Author

Doug

7 years ago

Strasburg bested Kershaw by almost 2 WAR (6.5 to 4.6), and did so in the same number of innings and with only one more start.

Nats are the first team since the 1891 Boston Beaneaters to have three pitchers with 6 WAR, 15 wins and a .600 W-L%.

Paul E

7 years ago

Reply to Doug

The 1890’s – the good old days; as the horses died in the streets of Boston from cholera, that Beaneaters staff surrendered 658 runs – only 381 earned ! I really believe there are great players in every era, but it sure is difficult to compare them out of their era. James made the argument that Nichols was better than his contemporary Cy Young for the first 12 or so years of their careers and then Young just finished better than any body else ever did (possible exception of Nolan Ryan?). But, I have no idea how you can make… Read more »

Mike L

7 years ago

Wanted to throw something out for discussion. How much weight should we give to FIP in a single season? Isn’t the stat more useful in determining the possibility of future regression than it is in evaluating the net results for one year, unless we have two otherwise nearly equal pitchers? I realize this is somewhat Luddite, but we send pitchers to the mound to get results–which is to get outs that result in fewer runs and more (team) wins. Robby Ray has an ERA+ of 166, 4th, but he’s only 10th in FIP with a not eye-popping 3.72. Why would… Read more »

Dr. Doom

7 years ago

Reply to Mike L

That’s a very fair question. The argument against is the one you’ve already made: pitchers are sent out to get results; those matter most. The argument FOR is this. Pitchers and batters only have three interactions that don’t involve fielders: home runs, walks (or HBP), and strikeouts. EVERY other play (well, except pitcher errors, I s’pose, but that’s a pretty limited number of plays) involves fielders. However good or bad fielders are greatly affects the pitcher’s results. Yes, FIP better corresponds to future events; perhaps the reason is that it actually has more to do with underlying talent and removing… Read more »

Mike L

7 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Thanks for the response. So, let’s roughly normalize for fielding by picking just one team (and one set of fielders)
Brewers had a tattered rotation (13 different starters). Three of them had more than 140 IP:
Zach Davis, 191 IP, 3.90 ERA, ERA+112, FIP 4:22
Jimmy Nelson, 175 IP, 3.49 ERA, ERA+126, FIP 3.05
Chase Anderson 141 IP, 2.74 ERA, ERA+160, FIP 3.58
What should I be making of this? Did Anderson just pitch in a lot of luck?

no statistician but

7 years ago

Reply to Mike L

Re FIP: Of the top 100 player seasons in FIP, only one occurred between 1918 and 1962, Hal Newhouser’s in 1946. Of the other 99, 11 occurred between 1962 and 1972, one in 1984, 2 in the 1990s, 3 in the 2010s, and the other 86 prior to 1919. Does this mean that there was a great dearth of top flight pitching in the 1920s through the 1950s, and from the early 1970s through the late 1990s? Or does it mean that there’s a correlation between low FIPs and eras of pitching dominance? If the answer to the latter question… Read more »

Mike L

7 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

“Does this mean that there was a great dearth of top flight pitching in the 1920s through the 1950s, and from the early 1970s through the late 1990s?” It’s hard to believe that could be true for such extended periods. I think it’s more likely style of play, what managerial expectations were. Look at one of our favorite whipping boys of the past, Whitey Ford. Ford had a 2.75 ERA and a 3.26 FIP. His K/9 was 5.6, a level that today would probably keep him fighting for a roster spot. Yet he finished in the top ten (AL) in… Read more »

Dr. Doom

7 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

nsb, I have to call you out for posting something likely to mislead others. You’ve implicitly claimed that there’s a fundamental flaw in FIP, in that “only” 14 of the top 100 seasons in history came post-1919. Well, FIP isn’t ERA+; it doesn’t normalize for era. Rather than replacing ERA+, it replaces ERA; therefore it absolutely correlates with periods of pitching dominance, exactly as ERA does. Did you know that only EIGHT of the top 100 ERA seasons come post-1919? So you have said that FIP indicates that most pitchers in history have not been as good as early in… Read more »

no statistician but

7 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Doom: not trying to mislead, just trying to supply a fact I came across while looking up FIP and then to pass it along with two implied observations—that low FIP correlates strongly with eras of pitching dominance, and that we’re in one of those periods now. As for their being a flaw, fundamental or otherwise, in FIP, I honestly believe that it is just a stat that gives a different look at pitching. Don’t think it’s nearly as important as some others. In 1968, though, there were around 10 FIPs in the top 200 all time. Don’t have it in… Read more »

no statistician but

7 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

Or, come to think, it might have been the top 300. That’s how deep I went into the list.

Could someone isolate the career FIP leaders for the live ball era, starting with Pete Alexander, who’s a notable carry-over?

Dr. Doom

7 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

Perhaps Doug would be willing? He has a PI subscription. Here are the top-30 by my eyeballs (and btw, there were 18 post-1920 seasons in the top 100): 1. Pedro Martinez, 1999 (1.395) 2. Dwight Gooden, 1984 (1.685) 3. Bob Gibson, 1968 (1.775) 4. Clayton Kershaw, 2014 (1.811) 5. Sandy Koufax, 1963 (1.852) 6. Sandy Koufax, 1965 (1.927) 7. Tom Seaver, 1.931 (1971) 8. Hal Newhouser, 1946 (1.966) 9. Clayton Kershaw, 2015 (1.991) 10. Matt Harvey, 2013 (2.005) 11. Steve Carlton, 1972 (2.009) 12. Luis Tiant, 1968 (2.041) 13. Bob Moose, 1968 (2.063) 14. Sandy Koufax, 1966 (2.071) 15. Sandy… Read more »

Richard Chester

7 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Dr. Doom; I checked the list via the PI. You are spot on but you have your numbers reversed for number 7, Tom Seaver.

no statistician but

7 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Eighteen is what I got, too, Doom. I’ve just lost the ability to subtract in my dotage, so it seems.

Mike L

7 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

And here’s food for thought….Greg Maddux’s breathtaking 1994 ERA 1.56, ERA+ of 271, but FIP of 2.39, and his equally insane 1995 ERA 1.63, ERA+ 260, FIP 2.26 don’t make the list.
Something is slightly discordant.

Dr. Doom

7 years ago

Reply to Mike L

Again, as someone who’s been researching this stuff for a long time, I don’t see what’s discordant at all about that. Maddux in ’94 and ’95 had PHENOMENAL numbers in terms of FIP. You’re making a huge mistake of forgetting context. It would be like saying something is amiss in ERA because Pedro Martinez’s 2000 season, possibly the greatest pitching season of all-time, is not in the top 100 seasons of all-time by ERA. OF COURSE it isn’t; part of what makes it so remarkable is that the league ERA was 4.91, and his ERA was 1.74. No, historically, a… Read more »

Mike L

7 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Hey, I said I didn’t know what I was talking about. My use of the word “discordant” was merely to display my sometimes-useful vocabulary. I’m going back to politics…I have another piece due next weekend, have no clear thoughts on it, and. based on this exchange, will not talk about baseball.

e pluribus munu

7 years ago

Reply to Mike L

Mike, If I’d noticed Maddux’s figures in the context of this discussion, I would have written a post like yours and been schooled by Doom instead of you. Except I probably would have typed “dischordant.”

Mike L

7 years ago

Reply to e pluribus munu

EPM, that got me laughing. I think “dischordant” relates to a cheap guitar. But I wouldn’t fret over it.

Dr. Doom

7 years ago

Reply to Mike L

My son is asleep in the rim next to me, and that fret joke made me giggle hard enough that I worried I woke him. Don’t leave us because of my lack of couth, though. Your diction and commentary are welcome. And who needs more thoughts about politics, anyway? You’re better off in baseball. Sorry if I was harsh. I realize not everyone is as familiar with these things; I still need the reminder once in a while, though.

Mike L

7 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Doom, don’t sweat it. The fault is mine-I’m just not grasping the utility of FIP as a comparative measuring tool. The hardy band of survivors at HHS get the math better than I do, but it’s like going a concert–just because I can’t play the sax https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acBixR_JRuM
doesn’t mean I don’t like the sound.
Seriously, I have eight days to come up with something brilliant (or at least passable) and you might have just given me an idea. Last time I wrote about coal miners. http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2017/11/why-did-the-coal-miner-refuse-to-cross-the-road.html#more

Doug

7 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

The link to the best FIP seasons is: https://bbref.com/pi/shareit/bDPZG

Hartvig

7 years ago

Reply to Doug

I’m trying to wrap my head around the idea of Bob Moose at #13. At first I thought it must just be one of those things like Norm Cash hitting .361 or Davey Johnson hitting 43 home runs (or however many it was) but then I scroll down and there he is again at #102 and #106. Or Bob Bruce at #62 for his 1964 season. The 60’s were the zenith of my youthful infatuation with baseball. I not only had the vast majority of all of the baseball cards produced from 1964 to 1968 but knew almost all of… Read more »

e pluribus munu

7 years ago

I have lots of conflicting feelings about Kershaw. (Whether he deserved the CYA is not one of them: he didn’t, though I can’t see how his pWAR drops as low as 4.6.) On the plus side, he not only had a lot of wins, he also had very few losses, a net difference of 4 on W-L compared with Scherzer, which is significant. Moreover, the Dodgers went 23-4 in Kershaw’s starts, vs. the Nats going 21-10 in Scherzer’s (despite which, I’ll be putting Scherzer at #1 when I get around to voting). And, of course, the black ink categories are,… Read more »

ThickieDon

7 years ago

Kenley Jansen had one of the best relief seasons in modern times, according to WAR and WPA.

In a weak year, he is definitely getting a look. Probably will get a 5th place vote from me.

e pluribus munu

7 years ago

Reply to ThickieDon

I have been thinking along similar lines, ThickieD. Normally I don’t see closers as viable CYA candidates because of low IP totals, and because I think the average closer is doing something most solid starters could also do: pitch one effective inning under pressure with an arm that pitches few innings during the season. But the weakness of the CYA field — in which the leading candidates all pitched modest innings totals for starters — combined with Jansen’s near-perfection in his limited, assigned role, seems to me to open the door for an exception. (This thinking was behind my 10th-place… Read more »

ThickieDon

7 years ago

Reply to e pluribus munu

Exactly my thought process. If more guys had gone 230 IP (or even 200), Jansen wouldn’t make the cut – nowhere near – but this year, there is a dearth of really strong candidates, IMO. Scherzer is #1, no question, and did have a really good year (I had him 10th or 11th on my MVP ballot, I think). After that, I like Strasburg and Greinke – due to low IP totals they weren’t even really in consideration for MVP, although I guess Strasburg would have been in my Top 15 or 20. I’ll probably put Degrom at #4, unless… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar

7 years ago

389 guys have pitched at least 150 innings and had their HR allowed be at least 15 percent of hits allowed.

ERA under 5 … 305
ERA under 4 … 140
ERA under 3 … 12

2.31 … Kershaw (2017)
2.51 … Scherzer (2017)

2.61 … Johan Santana
2.68 … Billy Pierce
2.69 … Jim Bunning
2.79 … Scherzer
2.83 … Yu Darvish
2.89 … Robbie Ray (2017)
2.96 … Scherzer
2.98 … Jeff Robinson
2.98 … Curt Schilling
2.98 … Oliver Perez

e pluribus munu

7 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Voomo, Your figures make it clear that 2017 was an exceptional year in this regard. However, besides Kershaw, the other two 2017 names on this list don’t necessarily show a deviation from past performance that signals a change in their records in this regard. Scherzer simply continued his trend from the last two years, and Ray’s change was that he brought his hits and ERA under control for the first time: 2017 establishes his initial profile as a quality pitcher. But 2017 marked something dramatically new for Kershaw. The figure I’m using is different from yours (not HR as %… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar

7 years ago

I’m finding this hard to sort out, and I do not know if I will vote. … Part of the difference between Kershaw and Max, other than the 4 extra starts, is that more was asked of Scherzer, in terms of pitch count. Do we know if this speaks to: * their coaches knowing their capabilities * the fact that the Dodgers had a better bullpen * or that Dusty was old school and L.A. went by the modern 100-pitch book ? Starts with more than 100 pitches: 22 … Max 12 … Clayton Or, it could be that Kershaw… Read more »

Doug

7 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

I don’t think it was Dusty being old school, as much as Dusty not having a bullpen for half the season. He certainly wasn’t old school when pulling Scherzer in a playoff game at 98 pitches and only one hit allowed, unfortunately (for Scherzer) to the last batter he faced.

e pluribus munu

7 years ago

By the way, Doom, when you mentioned a “fascinating Jeff Samardzija argument” I figured it was a lighthearted moment. Was it? If not, I’d be fascinated indeed.

Dr. Doom

7 years ago

Reply to e pluribus munu

Not a joke; again, this goes to how seriously you take fielding-independent numbers. But Samardzija walked the fewest batters in the NL (as a rate), while pitching the most innings. Fangraphs has him as the 8th most valuable pitcher in the NL, in spite of leading the league in losses. He was second in the league in SO:BB. The Giants were terrible, both defensively and offensively. There’s a strong argument, I think, that, with a different club, Samardzija ends up with a 2.80 ERA instead of 4.40, given the right team, and with a 15-9 record instead of 9-15. If… Read more »

e pluribus munu

7 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Thanks for the explanation, Doc. I figured that if you did mean to build a case, BB/9 and Giant run support would have to be part of it. The low BB figure helps out Samardzija’s FIP a lot (his figure’s ok, but still only 8th in the NL, short of CYA territory), but still, he gave up 30 HR and 48 runs scored on HR. Kershaw, whose problems on that front were prodigious, allowed only 71% as many runs on HR as Samardzija in 84% as many IP. . . . Enough: you’re trying to make the hard argument, and… Read more »

Dr. Doom

7 years ago

Reply to e pluribus munu

Yeah, he underperformed his FIP by 0.81 runs. If he goes 0.81 in the other direction with a better team and a more favorable ballpark for homers, he’s in contention – not to win the award, mind you, but for a down-ballot slot.

Doug

7 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Leading league in IP and BB/9.
3 – Robin Roberts – 1952, 1953, 1954
2 – Walter Johnson – 1913, 1915
1 – Jeff Samardzija (2017), Roy Halladay (2010), Greg Maddux (1995), Fergie Jenkins (1971), Jim Kaat (1966), Lew Burdette (1961), Pete Donohue (1926), Eddie Cicotte (1919), Pete Alexander (1917), Christy Mathewson (1908), Cy Young (1903)

Paul E

7 years ago

Reply to Doug

Jenkins 1971 NL CYA winner
Maddux 1995 NL CYA winner
Halladay 2010 NL CYA winner
Kaat 1966 – Koufax took all 20 1st place votes (1 ML award)
Burdette 1961 – Ford had 9 1st place votes, Spahn 6, Lary 2 (1 ML award)

Doug

7 years ago

Reply to Paul E

If there had been league CYA’s in 1966, hard to imagine that Kaat wouldn’t have won it with his 300+ IP and 25 wins for the defending champs, five more wins than anyone else.

Walter Johnson also won 25 in the two seasons shown here (and a bunch more). Only other Senator/Twin to win 25 – General Crowder in 1932.

Paul E

7 years ago

Reply to Doug

…. a little late with this but, how about Alvin Crowder is 3rd all-time (behind Grove ,136, and Hubbell, 133) in the live ball era (1920-present) for wins (124) from ages 29 through 34 ? The General is tied with Bob Lemon

Voomo Zanzibar

7 years ago

Reply to e pluribus munu

I’d like to hear that, too.
Because his numbers are lovely (well, other than W/L, ERA, and WAR).
…
Let’s look at Game Logs.
20 Starts in which the Giants scored 3 runs or fewer.
11 with 2 or fewer
…
7 extremely good starts where he got a no-decision.
5 Quality Starts with a loss.
So, put him on a team with an offense, give him all the luck in the world, and a W in every gave with at least 6 IP and no more than 3 runs allowed, and his W/L would have been: 20-12

no statistician but

7 years ago

At the risk of being tedious, I’d like to go at FIP again. Here is the info I was hoping I could con someone else with more knowhow into providing, so as not to make minor errors. I may have made a couple. My eyes, seriously, are not what they might be. Career FIP in the live ball era: The 1000 inning cutoff at B-R is far too generous, plus it includes relievers, while I’m only interested in pitchers who were predominantly starters, but OK, I’ll try to deal with it.. I come up with 72 live ball pitchers out… Read more »

e pluribus munu

7 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

Not tedious at all, nsb, This is great information and we’re fortunate you decided to tabulate it for us. I’m not certain, however, that I’d agree with your conclusion that we are in an era of pitching dominance. Or perhaps I should say that if we are, the meaning of “pitching dominance” is not the same in the 2010s as in earlier eras. We know what a year of pitching dominance looks like: compare this past season to 1968 (the compilation numbers are average per team): __________RA/G_____HR______BB______K________FIP 2017_____4.65______204_____528___1337_____4.36 1968_____3.42______100_____458____957_____2.98 I think, in fact, we are in an era of hitter… Read more »

Dr. Doom

7 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

nsb, to your point that “the evidence is pretty clear that low FIP correlates with eras of pitching predominance,” yes; it necessarily does that. FIP is calculated using a constant (a constant that’s recalculated each season) so that FIP and ERA are always the same at the league level. If the ERA is low, the FIP is low; if the ERA is high, the FIP is high. It’s not correlation; it’s a dependent relationship. It’s akin to saying, “I’ve noticed that home runs correlate to eras of good power hitting.” Well, yes; but that’s because the one thing defines the… Read more »

no statistician but

7 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Something I should have done earlier but didn’t—i.e., taking a look at recent league FIP averages—tends to substantiate what you and epm are saying about the nature of the current era, but I wonder a little all the same if, as you also say, the current era is “unusual.” “Unprecedented,” is the term I’d use, and hard to pin down.Unprecedented strikeouts; unprecedented HR production up and down lineups; pitch counts determining outcomes; bullpens full of one inning or even one PA specialists. I haven’t verified this through research—it’s beyond me—but there seem to be more blowout games or possibly more… Read more »

e pluribus munu

7 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

I wonder whether you haven’t identified in passing one of the key conditions that would allow for dominant pitching in the current hitter’s era, nsb: pitch counts. Basically, less is being asked of all dominant pitchers than was the case in the past. Look at the highest IP totals among those who received Cy Young votes at decade intervals: 2017__214 2007__241 1997__264 1987__281 1977__319 1967__302 1957__271 (only two candidates) Just as closers now rise to unheard of ERA and WHIP figures, with their mission reduced to the intensity of a single inning, starters now can count on pacing their “fuel… Read more »

e pluribus munu

7 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Since you added a late post on the last string, Doom (linking to Tom Tango on Aaron Judge), I thought I’d mention here that I’ve added a comment suggesting some common ground between the issue there to this discussion on FIP.

e pluribus munu

7 years ago

nsb has claimed that he is risking tediousness in his pursuit of FIP data, but I think this post is going to set a standard of tedium that it will be hard for him to challenge. On the last string, I wrote at length about issue of chance/luck, and then decided to tack on a thousand words more. Anyone who made their way through that won’t be surprised to find that I’m very wary of over-reliance on FIP. FIP is an attempt to assess pitching quality independent of “chance,” by which is meant specific batted-ball placement that no one player… Read more »

e pluribus munu

7 years ago

Yet another long post, but of a different sort. I’ve put a lot of detail into this because it may be that someone more statworthy on HHS will see where the limits of my thinking are, and open my eyes to how to work with stats better (Doom, I’m actually looking at you). In trying to figure out how to vote, I’ve encountered a difficult problem (for me). I would like to place Kenley Jansen fifth, for reasons discussed on this string in response to ThickieDon’s indication that he was thinking along the same lines. That means I have to… Read more »

Dr. Doom

7 years ago

Reply to e pluribus munu

Sorry, epm. Didn’t see this post earlier. There are a few things working against Kershaw. The defense (spectacular), his RA9 is not that great (I mean, it’s great, but it’s his worst since 2012), and his ballparks were immensely favorable to him. I re-ran the numbers from baseball-ref to my limited understanding, and I came up with 28 RAA (bb-ref has 29, so I feel pretty good about that). The math looks like it checks out. The other thing is, the Dodgers DID have spectacular defense; I don’t know the best way to quantify that, but it doesn’t seem out… Read more »

e pluribus munu

7 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Thanks, Doom. I appreciate your going to all trouble. I recognize that the figures for things like Rtot and Rdrs show that the Dodgers’ defense was terrific. What I can’t figure out is what those figures are reflecting. I start with the famously weak traditional fielding stats because they’re easy to understand, even though we know they can be very misleading. The Dodgers played slightly more innings than average: how do they look in traditional stats? They have an ordinary number for PO, but far fewer assists than any other team: 1367 (league average: 1558; next fewest, Washington, with 1434).… Read more »

Dr. Doom

7 years ago

Reply to e pluribus munu

You are basically 100% on target. I read the “preview” version of your post and was all ready to work out the numbers for defensive efficiency to point out that the traditional numbers DO show the fielders to be outstanding… but then I saw that you noticed that already. I understand your point about pitchers being able to have some control over balls in play. That’s not how you put it, but that’s the gist of your argument – it’s their fault if the balls don’t go near the fielders, so they should be punished appropriately for it. There are… Read more »

e pluribus munu

7 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Very strong response, Doom. I find your Pedro example as strong as anecdotal evidence can be in challenging my approach. I’m going to have to stretch to offer even a weak response. Here it comes. The fact that BAbip is not predictable is certainly true, but that doesn’t mean it’s random, only that we don’t and probably never will understand it’s specific causes (at least on my theory): only when batter or pitcher skill is overwhelmingly dominant will the outcome be easy to assess, because the primary agency is so aligned with the intention of one person. (For such an… Read more »

no statistician but

7 years ago

Reply to e pluribus munu

Just a couple of kibiztzes—not a word, but what the heck.

1. The Washington pitching staff benefitted from a .698 DefEar, or whatever it is, roughly 99.3 % of the .703 enjoyed by LA. So—I’m not sure it isn’t that old bogeyman Park Effect that’s really raising its ugly head here.

2) Let’s try ‘Chance’ instead of ‘Luck’. Joseph Conrad wrote a novel on the subject—how people come together and interact through apparent chance as dictated by various forces. Chance is what it means—something that provides an opportunity. Luck implies randomness. They’re called chances for a reason.

no statistician but

7 years ago

Time to vote, but first some observations: The candidates in this year’s senior circuit CY running—as someone else, maybe more than someone, has already noted—aren’t particularly inspiring of speechless awe, despite some gaudy stats.The three pWAR leaders all come from the same team, Sherzer, Strasburg, and Gonzalez. Trouble there is, they played in the weakest division by far in either league, finishing 20 games ahead of the second place Marlins who ended up 77-85. In fact, the Nats only played 42 games against teams on the plus side of .500, this with a modest 23-19 advantage, leaving the other 120… Read more »

Hartvig

7 years ago

Time to get the ball rolling on voting & since I went last on the AL vote (I think), I’ll go first this time (unless I overlooked someone): 1) Scherzer I’ll admit that his being an ex-Tiger & a seemingly good guy was a factor but it was the additional 25 IP’s that put him over the top. 2) Kershaw Close call over Strasburg, no one deciding factor, but I was just a tiny bit more impressed by his numbers 3) Strasburg 4) Greinke An easier call over Gonzålez than I expected, mostly because of WHIP and SO/BB. 5) Gonzålez… Read more »

Dr. Doom

7 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

Paul voted in a comment, I believe.

e pluribus munu

7 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

I was so captivated by horses dying of cholera on HHS that I missed Paul’s vote too.

Mike L

7 years ago

Reply to e pluribus munu

Next election I talk about the Blizzard of 1888.

Paul E

7 years ago

Reply to e pluribus munu

Yes. Then we get to the early stages of the expansion era. Talk about progress, the only thing “Found On Road Dead” was my father’s ’67 Galaxy. From there, road travel improved for us in the form of an 8 cylinder, 283 cubic inch Chevy that had a valve tap that sounded like squirrels arguing in an animated cartoon

e pluribus munu

7 years ago

Here’s my vote: 1) Max 2) Kershaw 3) Strasburg 4) Gonzalez 5) Jansen I’ve already explained the Jansen vote, both in my MVP vote and in reply to ThickieD’s suggestion. The issue for me was choosing a #5 starter to bump so Jansen had a seat, and the candidates were Gonzalez and Greinke, whom I think were of almost identical value. It really wasn’t a matter of designating one as better than Jansen and the other not: I’ve included Jansen as a statement about trying to give outstanding excellence in a designated role its due. Gonzalez’s weakness was his high… Read more »

Richard Chester

7 years ago

Here’s my vote:
1. Scherzer
2. Strasberg
3. Kershaw
4. Gonzalez
5. Ray

Dr. Doom

7 years ago

Reminder and vote. Reminder first. It’s your last day to vote, everyone! Don’t forget! Here’s my vote: 1) Max Scherzer 2) Clayton Kershaw 3) Stephen Strasburg 4) Zack Greinke 5) Kenley Jansen Razor-thin for the three short of Scherzer, in my opinion. Scherzer is the top by enough of a margin that I don’t have any problem picking him. Kershaw’s standard numbers are better than Strasburg’s; Strasburg probably had better advanced numbers, and better numbers when you give advanced and traditional equal weight; yet, I had to put Kershaw up there. His standard numbers are too good. I threw Kenley… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar

7 years ago

1. Corey Knebel
2. Kenley Jansen
3. Felipe Rivero
4. Max Scherzer
5. Clayton Kershaw

Doug

7 years ago

1. Scherzer
2. Strasburg
3. Kershaw
4. Ray
5. Gonzalez

Dr. Doom

7 years ago

Here are your results for the HHS 2017 NL Cy Young, with scores next to names and first place votes in parentheses. Tiebreaker procedure is explained below: 1) Max Scherzer, 48 (6) 2) Clayton Kershaw, 29 (1) 3) Stephen Strasburg, 24 4) Kenley Jansen, 7 5) Robbie Ray, 7 6) Corey Knebel, 7 (1) 7) Gio Gonzalez, 6 8) Zack Greinke, 4 9) Felipe Romero, 3 10) Alex Wood, 1 Tiebreakers go as follows: total ballots first, then highest ballot position. Had there been a tie thereafter, we would’ve removed the last ballot which created the tie. Paul E was… Read more »

Hartvig

7 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that Miguel Cabrera will get exactly the same amount of support from us as he did from the BBWAA. Beyond that I haven’t a clue.

Voomo Zanzibar

7 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Sure. I plugged Scherzer ahead of Kershaw because this is an award named after Cy Young. So, all other things being nearly equal, I went with the guy who didn’t miss any starts. Knebel got zero other votes, both in this forum, and in the ‘official’ vote. I think that is an oversight. Were this not an open-ballot, I probably wouldn’t vote him number one, but I wanted to bring attention to his effort. He did blow two saves on Sep 20th and 22nd, which might have cost the Beer-Guys a playoff spot. Oops. Before that crappy last week and… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar

7 years ago

Congratulations to Aaron Boone, whom we all know from this game-winning home run:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CIN/CIN199809270.shtml

You know, the game where two sets of brothers played on the same infield.

Paul E

7 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Wow ! Larkin’s only ML game !
Do you really believe Aaron Boone will do as well as Girardi did this past season? I mean, I’m not a Girardi fan (or NYY) and it would have been cool to see him get a lifetime contract and have to wear that #28 for the next 15 years, but I honestly don’t get it…..
How much money are they saving on that move?

e pluribus munu

7 years ago

Reply to Paul E

I’m with Paul. I don’t recall seeing a managerial change that made less sense to me. I’m also like Paul in being no Yankee fan, but I do think highly of Girardi.

Paul E

7 years ago

Reply to e pluribus munu

Sorry, when I stated “I’m not a Girardi fan”, I meant I wasn’t a guy who was going to cheer his accomplishments. But, yes, he certainly did accomplish much with the NYY in 2017. I was, actually, shocked that they played so well – even if their W-L record doesn’t much their Pythagorus’ estimation.
Supposedly, he was a little tough on the young guys? Maybe they’ll appreciate him when they’re watching the AL playoffs on TV next October?

Dr. Doom

7 years ago

Reply to Paul E

My suspicion is that Cashman, who supposedly never liked Girardi, felt that “If we can finish 10 games under our Pythagorean with you, we can do that without you.” I suspect that he believes that have the talent to win, irrespective of management.

Doug

7 years ago

Reply to Paul E

I’ll miss Boone as a broadcaster: insightful and easy to listen to. By my count, Boone is the 7th Yankee manager, excluding player managers, with no prior professional managing experience; Lou Piniella is the only one of the previous six (the others are Bucky Dent, Gene Michael, Dick Howser, Yogi Berra and Bob Shawkey) to last more than one season in the Bronx (you could perhaps add Bill Donovan, who followed two seasons as player/manager with just one as manager only). Dent and Piniella were two of six Yankee managers in a 5 year period (1988-92), a group that also… Read more »

Doug

7 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

That Larkin/Boone brothers game was played the same day as Roy Halladay’s second major league start and first complete game and win; it was an almost no-hitter broken up by Bobby Higginson’s pinch-home run with two out in the 9th.

Dr. Doom

7 years ago

For those who are wondering where the AL MVP post is, I did send it to Doug, and I’m sure he’ll get it up as soon as he’s able. I’m looking forward to the discussion!