AL Cy Young- Breaking down the contenders

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

A cursory look at the numbers in the AL, puts out four true contenders for the Cy Young: Santana, Halladay, Schilling, and Verlander. Had he not been hurt, Liriano could have joined this group, but when taking everything into account, these are the four that have a realistic shot.

 

Beginning with ERA, Santana takes the lead.

 

1. Santana- 3.03

2. Verlander- 3.05

3. Halladay- 3.18

4. Schilling- 3.84

 

Santana has such a narrow lead over Verlander that at this stage it is impossible to separate the two. Halladay is close behind at third, and if we based things on ERA alone, Schilling wouldn't even be in the conversation.

 

Moving from ERA to WHIP, Santana remains the leader, but Verlander suddenly looks like the one who doesn't belong.

 

1. Santana 1.03

2. Halladay 1.10

3. Schilling 1.16

4. Verlander 1.24

 

After taking these two stats together, I'd rank the contenders Santana, Halladay, Verlander, and Schilling.

 

Moving to win shares, my rankings above become more justified.

 

1. Santana- 17

T2. Halladay 16

T2 Verlander 16

4. Schilling.

 

Moving to PRC (Pitching Runs Created), Santana really shows his accendency.

 

1. Santana 120

2. Halladay 99

3. Schilling 96

4. Verlander 88

 

Based on all of this, I'd rank them just as I did after the first two stats. Santana looks to be the most deserving. Halladay barely edges Verlander for the second spot. Schilling brings up the fourth spot.

 

Now, considering the balloters preference for W-L, record, we take a cursory look.

 

1. Halladay 16-3

2. Santana 15-5

3. Verlander 15-6

4. Schilling 14-5

 

Halladay has the lead there, but there's enough time for each of the contenders to close the gap. If Halladay continues to win, he will steal a lot of votes in the eyes of the voters, especially if he keeps the ERA as close to Santana as it currently is.

 

Based on everything, I stand behind my rankings of Santana as the winner with Halladay and Verlander trailing by just a little.

Edited August 27, 2006 by vance_the_cubs_fan

[Ding Dong Johnson]

That Verlander kid in Detroit's pretty good too. :wink:

[Jon]

Santana leads the league not only in BAA, but also OBP and OPS against. He's second in SLG against.

[Milli1306]

That Verlander kid in Detroit's pretty good too. :wink:

 

he's a flat out stud...but apparently this Veerlander kid has some good stuff too :wink:

[Laura]

Santana.

 

Wins very heavily weighted in Cy Young voting; still, it will take more than one win for Halladay to beat Santana as it stands and there are a few games left.

[Big Fergie J]

As much as I want Halladay to win again, the stats do favor Santana.

 

I won't argue if Doc gets the award, he is a stud. However, Santana has been more dominant.

[danonwaveland]

Veerlander and Schilling? Are you kidding? They weren't even good enough to make the all-star roster. You must have meant Buehrle and Contreras, right?

[illiniguy]

Liriano.

[stitchface]

santana should an will win. liriano would have had a great shot had he pitched the whole season. veerlander does not exist and verlander isn't quite there.

[baseball7897]

Liriano.

 

Im going to go out on a limb and say, the Twins will win the world series if Liriano comes back, and pitches the way he did before he went on the DL.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

If Verlander is there why not Bonderman?

 

Sorry, I've been on a Bonderman crusade lately. The guy is one of the AL's top 5 pitchers and is getting no credit for it.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Liriano.

 

Liriano just hasn't pitched enough this year. There's no doubt about how good he's been when he's there, but he just doesn't have the IP to really be considered.

 

Liriano's numbers are good enough to be considered deserving and I probably shouldn't have omitted him. I'd still give the award to Santana, but the fact that both Liriano and Santana are the two most dominant pitchers in the league and are both on the same team is sick!

Edited August 27, 2006 by vance_the_cubs_fan

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

If Verlander is there why not Bonderman?

 

Sorry, I've been on a Bonderman crusade lately. The guy is one of the AL's top 5 pitchers and is getting no credit for it.

 

Bonderman's PRC is 90. That places him behind Santana, Halliday, and Schilling in that category. It does place him ahead of Verlander. Bonderman's ERA is 3.92 which is higher than any of the ones I considered. Bonderman's WHIP is 1.23 which is better than only Verlander and that by one-onehundreth of a run. His record is only 11-6 which I think will eliminate him in the eyes of the voters. He also has only 12 Win Shares which is four lower than Verlander and also lower than any of the other pitchers I considered. Verlander is having a good year, but he's a tier below these guys.

Edited August 27, 2006 by vance_the_cubs_fan

[TB_11]

Liriano.

 

Im going to go out on a limb and say, the Twins will win the world series if Liriano comes back, and pitches the way he did before he went on the DL.

 

I don't think that's going out on a limb.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Vance, it's Verlander.

[RationalSoxFan]

Liriano.

 

Im going to go out on a limb and say, the Twins will win the world series if Liriano comes back, and pitches the way he did before he went on the DL.

 

Too, many, commas.

 

No doubt Liriano would have won the award if he stayed healthy. From a WS perspective, it's nice not facing him, but as a baseball fan I want him out there.

[stitchface]

Liriano.

 

Im going to go out on a limb and say, the Twins will win the world series if Liriano comes back, and pitches the way he did before he went on the DL.

 

Too, many, commas.

 

No doubt Liriano would have won the award if he stayed healthy. From a WS perspective, it's nice not facing him, but as a baseball fan I want him out there.

 

The Sox would only face him in the regular season of course. your boys need a win today - although there is a long way to go still.

[soccer10k]

1. Santana

2. Halladay

3. Verlander

[Warren Brusstar]

Why should WHIP or component ERA or PRC factor into Cy Young balloting at all? Indeed, in my view, those numbers should be less important than wins (which itself is a very poor criterion).

 

OK, hear me out - this is not an anti-stathead argument. Indeed, I'm as big a stat-nerd as there is on this board. But, unlike hitters, there is no reason for purposes of Cy Young voting to look beyond actual results.

 

First premise: The Cy Young award should be given to the pitcher that most helps his team win games.

 

Second premise: That pitcher is, generally, the one that saves his team the most amount of runs over a replacement level pitcher. In other words, a pitcher that pitches 250 innings at 2.80 ERA is more valuable than a pitcher that pitches 200 innings at a 2.70 ERA. The single exception to that rule relates to the third premise.

 

Third premise: Consistency is also important. A pitcher that throws 31 shutouts, but who allows 100 runs in a single game is obviously more valuable than a pitcher that allows exactly 3 runs per nine innings.

 

Now, initially, it's important to note that evaluating pitching contributions is significantly different than assessing the contributions of a hitter. The job of a hitter is to maximize his team's ability to score runs. However, as we all know, because a hitter is only 1/9th of his team's offense, his traditional run output numbers (runs scored and RBI) are heavily team-dependent statistics and do not fairly reflect his contribution. Accordingly, runs created, equivalent average, and a host of other numbers are necessary to understand how a hitter is contributing within a team environment.

 

On the other hand, a pitcher is involved in every single at-bat for the opposition. Thus, while peripheral numbers have significant predictive value, they are not necessary to determine how effective a pitcher has been.

 

For example, assume for a moment that Player A posted a 3.00 ERA, with a WHIP of 1.40 and a component ERA of 4.00, while Player B posted a 4.00 ERA, with a WHIP of 1.20 and a component ERA of 3.00. Going forward, because of his better peripheral numbers, Player B is much more likely to post a better ERA the following year. But, for purposes of Cy Young award voting, why should Player B be rewarded for having better peripheral numbers? If Player A fortuitously pitched well with runners in scoring position in 2006 (while Player B pitcher poorly), Player A was significantly more valuable to his team. The pitcher's ONLY job is not to allow runs. If Player A posts an uncharacteristically high WHIP while allowing significantly fewer runs, he is more valuable to his team.

 

Indeed, as maligned as pitching "Wins" are by the sabr community, that statistic at least has some correlation to a pitcher's consistency. To wit - a pitcher with a 3.00 ERA that allowed 15 runs in one game was more valuable to his team than a pitcher with a 3.00 ERA that allowed no more than 5 runs in any single game. The first pitcher will also likely have more wins.

[Mephistopheles]

All of your theory based on consistency and how wins correlates to giving a team a chance to win can actually be measured using SNLVAR.

 

Currently:

 

1. 6.7 Johan Santana

2. 5.8 Roy Halladay

3. 5.4 Dan Haren

3. 5.4 Justin Verlander

3. 5.4 Barry Zito

 

And why should peripheral ERAs be used to a certain extent? For one if the pitcher's ERA is not line with his peripherals ERA than we can come to two logical conclusions: A.) He was very lucky and/or B.) His defense played extremely well behind him.

 

Should we really give him an Cy Young because his defense was better?

 

If you want to give a player an award because of something that is pure dumb luck (essentially having your ERA out of line with your peripheral ERA by a significant margin), then you have to do it in the MVP voting. I guess we should evaluate MVPs based on RBI and R, since there is a pure dumb luck factor there too.

[soccer10k]

A few things:

 

1. Can somebody explain to me what the terms "component ERA" and "peripheral ERA" mean?

 

2. Warren, your third premise is completely invalid and you are looking at it in an extreme way. There is no way you can consider a pitcher giving up 100 runs in a start and present that as part of your argument.

 

3. So by your argument Warren, Carpenter or Willis deserved the NL Cy Young in 2005 over Roger Clemens. I realize this was an extreme case but there was a thread talking about this a few months ago and there have been numerous examples over the past few years where a pitcher with more wins won the Cy Young over a pitcher with a better ERA and WHIP.

[stitchface]

A few things:

 

1. Can somebody explain to me what the terms "component ERA" and "peripheral ERA" mean?

 

2. Warren, your third premise is completely invalid and you are looking at it in an extreme way. There is no way you can consider a pitcher giving up 100 runs in a start and present that as part of your argument.

 

3. So by your argument Warren, Carpenter or Willis deserved the NL Cy Young in 2005 over Roger Clemens. I realize this was an extreme case but there was a thread talking about this a few months ago and there have been numerous examples over the past few years where a pitcher with more wins won the Cy Young over a pitcher with a better ERA and WHIP.

 

peripheral ERA is what your ERA should be based on your peripherals. based on the theory that pitchers can only control strikeouts, walks, and homeruns (ie they cannot control BABIP).

[soccer10k]

A few things:

 

1. Can somebody explain to me what the terms "component ERA" and "peripheral ERA" mean?

 

2. Warren, your third premise is completely invalid and you are looking at it in an extreme way. There is no way you can consider a pitcher giving up 100 runs in a start and present that as part of your argument.

 

3. So by your argument Warren, Carpenter or Willis deserved the NL Cy Young in 2005 over Roger Clemens. I realize this was an extreme case but there was a thread talking about this a few months ago and there have been numerous examples over the past few years where a pitcher with more wins won the Cy Young over a pitcher with a better ERA and WHIP.

 

peripheral ERA is what your ERA should be based on your peripherals. based on the theory that pitchers can only control strikeouts, walks, and homeruns (ie they cannot control BABIP).

 

So what is the formula to get the peripheral ERA for a pitcher?

[stitchface]

you'll have to find someone smarter than me for that . . .

this is all BP offers -

 

 

PERA is a pitcher's ERA as estimated from his peripheral statistics (EqH9, EqHR9, EqBB9, EqK9). Because it is not sensitive to the timing of batting events, PERA is less subject to luck than ERA, and is a better predictor of ERA going-forward than ERA itself. Like the rest of a pitcher's equivalent stats, his PERA is calibrated to an ideal league with an average PERA of 4.50.

[Warren Brusstar]

A few responses:

 

And why should peripheral ERAs be used to a certain extent? For one if the pitcher's ERA is not line with his peripherals ERA than we can come to two logical conclusions: A.) He was very lucky and/or B.) His defense played extremely well behind him.

 

Wrong. The problem with this statement is that peripheral ERA similarly fails to remove the effect of either luck or exceptional defense. A pitcher's PERA is based in part on his EqH9, which is largely affected by his defense. Indeed, a pitcher with a great defense will post a lower EqH9 than the same pitcher with a bad defense. So, peripheral ERA doesn't eliminate the effect of defense. Similarly, the luck component that is involved in posting a low BABIP is similarly reflected by PERA, becasue EqH9 does not normalize a pitcher's BABIP.

 

And, while the difference between ERA and peripheral ERA does adequately reflect whether a pitcher has pitched better with men in scoring position (and thus outpitching his PERA), I posit that this type of "luck" should not be eliminated from evaluating the success of a pitcher. While there can be no reasonable dispute that pitching well with men in scoring position is not a repeatable skill (at least not better than a pitcher's standard performance line), there should also be no reasonable dispute that a pitcher that has fortuitously pitched well with men in scoring position in a particular year has been very, very valuable. In other words, while it's absurd to make personnel decisions based upon a non-repeatable skill (pitching well with men in scoring position), it's similarly absurd to suggest that we should simply ignore this when considering a pitcher's relative success in a particular season.

 

If you want to give a player an award because of something that is pure dumb luck (essentially having your ERA out of line with your peripheral ERA by a significant margin), then you have to do it in the MVP voting. I guess we should evaluate MVPs based on RBI and R, since there is a pure dumb luck factor there too.

 

These are not even remotely analagous for all of the reasons stated above.

 

So by your argument Warren, Carpenter or Willis deserved the NL Cy Young in 2005 over Roger Clemens. I realize this was an extreme case but there was a thread talking about this a few months ago and there have been numerous examples over the past few years where a pitcher with more wins won the Cy Young over a pitcher with a better ERA and WHIP.

 

Perhaps I should have been more clear. As a general rule, the pitcher that saves more runs over replacement value (with park factors accounted for) is the more valuable pitcher. But, at its extreme, as I attempted to illustrate in my third premise, two or three very bad outings may distort a pitcher's overall ERA and inaccurately reflect his value. For example, Jason Marquis has had two starts this year in which he allowed more than 10 earned runs (one game with 13 ER, IIRC). But after run #7, for example, did Marquis really detrimentally affect his team's chances of winning the game? The Cardinals win expectancy when gave up run #11 did not change very much from when he gave up run #10. Yet, for purposes of his ERA, those extra ten runs are the equivalent of allowing 4 runs instead of 3 over the course of 10 starts. And there can be no reasonable dispute that those are not the same.

 

I'm not contending that wins are something that should be credited very much when evaluating candidates, because the amount of runs that his team scores is 50% of the equation. Yet, wins do provide an exceptionally crude proxy for illustrating a pitcher's consistency. Are other numbers better? Absolutely.

 

As to Clemens/Carpenter/Willis, discounting park effects, here's a rather crude estimate of how I'd value each. If we assume that a replacement level pither could post a 5.00 ERA (that's probably a good rough estimate), than here's how many runs each of the three saved per 9 innings pitched:

 

Carpenter: 5 - 2.83 (Carp's ERA) = 2.17 per 9

Clemens: 5 - 1.87 (Clemens' ERA) = 3.13 per 9

Willis: 5 - 2.63 (Willis' ERA) = 2.37 per 9

 

Now, turning those numbers into aggregate runs saved we have to multiply times the number of innings that each pitcher actually pitched (and divided by nine to turn ERA into earned runs per inning):

 

Carpernter: 2.17 * 241.66 / 9 = 58.26 runs saved

Clemens: 3.13 * 211.33 / 9 = 73.50 runs saved

Willis: 2.37 * 236.3 / 9 = 62.23 runs saved.

 

So, as a crude start, I would rank them:

 

1. Clemens

2. Willis

3. Carpenter