SBN Awards: NL Cy Young
by gondeee on Nov 11, 2009 8:53 AM EST
38 comments
Every year the bloggers and members of the SBN baseball blog community get together and do our own BWAA-style voting for all of the major awards. This year two Braves placed in the NL Cy Young voting, Javier Vazquez and Jair Jurrjens. Here is the voting breakdown:
| Rk | Player | Team | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tim Lincecum | San Francisco Giants | 18 | 13 | - | 129 |
| 2 | Chris Carpenter | St. Louis Cardinals | 9 | 4 | 7 | 64 |
| 3 | Adam Wainwright | St. Louis Cardinals | 4 | 4 | 10 | 42 |
| 4 | Javier Vazquez | Atlanta Braves | - | 5 | 7 | 22 |
| 5 | Dan Haren | Arizona Diamondbacks | - | 3 | 4 | 13 |
| 6 | Ubaldo Jimenez | Colorado Rockies | - | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| 7 | Cliff Lee | Philadelphia Phillies | - | - | 1 | 1 |
| 8 | Jair Jurrjens | Atlanta Braves | - | - | 1 | 1 |
Here is how Javier Vazquez and Jair Jurrjens stack up against the top-3 vote getters:
This was a pretty close race, and any of these guys could have a case for being the Cy Young.
The AL results are after the jump.
| Rk | Player | Team | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Zack Greinke | Kansas City Royals | 28 | 1 | - | 143 |
| 2 | Felix Hernandez | Seattle Mariners | - | 17 | 6 | 57 |
| 3 | Justin Verlander | Detroit Tigers | - | 8 | 9 | 33 |
| 4 | Roy Halladay | Toronto Blue Jays | 1 | 2 | 11 | 22 |
| 5 | CC Sabathia | New York Yankees | - | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| 6 | Jon Lester | Boston Red Sox | - | - | 1 | 1 |
0 recs |
38 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
Mr. Carpenter
deserved it most imho\
But they all had great years and easily could have won it
by Trek on Nov 11, 2009 9:44 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Lincecum is far and away the best pitcher in the NL, not just talent but also statistically. His FIP and tRA are each considerably lower than Carpenter. And as we always say about our pitchers, if he played with a good offense his win total would be through the roof. Carpenter had one hell of a season but there’s no one in baseball on Timmy’s level
by McCann's the Man on Nov 11, 2009 9:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no one in baseball?
Felix Hernandez and Zack Greinke wave hello.
by apoxonbothyourhouses on Nov 11, 2009 11:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He said NL
and Lincecum is right on level with those two IMO.
by Andy Braves Fan on Nov 11, 2009 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
he said "no on in baseball".
last sentence. reading is fun.
by apoxonbothyourhouses on Nov 11, 2009 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Greinke has one season so far and I don’t think you can really put Felix on Lincecum’s level yet, it’s not even debateable who the best pitcher in baseball is imo
by McCann's the Man on Nov 11, 2009 9:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Carpenter pitched a lot fewer innings and had a lot fewer strikeouts than the others. He most definitely did not deserve it. Lincecum was the right choice.
by redwards95 on Nov 11, 2009 10:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not quite
If Carpenter had 4-6 more starts under his belt which he couldn’t have had because of injury, he likely would have has as many innings as Javy and Lincecum, and could very well have surpassed them all in win total. The only real slight I could see hurting his chances with the BBWAA, is his lack of strikeouts compared to the other three strong candidates. Carpenter had a great season, in a shorter span, which could give him somewhat of a chance, but probably not enough to surpass Timmy’s astronomical K numbers, ERA, WHIP, CGs and SHOs.
As much as I’d loved to have seen Javy be higher, I think this is pretty accurate to how it will turn out officially, although I might transpose Wainwright and Carpenter.
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on Nov 11, 2009 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the question comes down to IP
I don’t think the strikeouts are relevant. K’s are a great indicator of future success, but I don’t think they are particularly relevant concerning awards for past performance. An out is an out no matter how you got it. While I think the K’s show that Lincecum is more likely to be better than Carpenter next year, that’s not what the Cy Young Award is about—-it is about who was better last year. The job of a pitcher is to get outs and not give up runs. Hence my criteria for Cy Young almost exclusively involves looking at ERA and IP. Carpenter had a better ERA but had 25 IP less than Lincecum. For me it is very close between those two. The others are close, but not quite as their numbers just don’t quite stack up. I am in coin flip territory between Lincecum and Carpenter, either winning it is fine with me.
by cavebird on Nov 11, 2009 12:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Exclusively ERA and IP???
Wow. The sad thing is, this is how the real voters probably evaluate pitcher talent.
by blindsided789 on Nov 11, 2009 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What is wrong with IP and ERA?
Real voters overly use wins, which is bad. But I don’t see why IP and ERA are bad to use. Remember, we are evaluating past performance, not predicting future performance. You are correct in one point—-adj ERA+ is a much better stat than ERA to use. In that, the numbers were Carpenter 183, Lincecum 176, Jurrjens 158, Wainwright 157. Vazquez was 10th with 143.
What other stats do you think are better indicators of past performance? Strikeouts don’t cut it—-a fly out or a ground out retires a batter just as much as a strikeout. Beyond that, I am not sure what would be a good stat to use.
by cavebird on Nov 11, 2009 6:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To follow up....
…reading your post I have to disagree with something you say—-you talk about evaluating pitcher talent. That is not the point of the Cy Young Award. The point of the Cy Young Award is to award the best pitching performance of the year, not find the most talented pitcher or the one most likely to do well going forward.
by cavebird on Nov 11, 2009 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As a further follow-up...
…One could argue that strikeouts have a small measure of importance in evaluating past performance because of a less chance of errors. However, the bottom line is still logging innings and not giving up runs. And while Carpenter had far less strikeouts than Lincecum, Carpenter gave up only one unearned run in 2009, while Lincecum gave up seven.
by cavebird on Nov 11, 2009 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't necessarily think they are bad stats.
But you said “exclusively” those two. Using any two stats to prove a point will provide a skewed view of performance. Say a pitcher pitched 200 innings at a 3.50 ERA, but had a WHIP of 1.50. I wouldn’t want that pitcher, because he’s allowing a lot of base runners, and at any time could implode.
A better stat would be FIP (Fielding Independent ERA). It measures a pitcher’s performance on things they can control – walks, strikeouts, and home runs. It’s not perfect, but it’s way better than ERA.
Also, fly balls and ground outs have a greater chance of being hits, so strikeouts are actually better. When a pitcher doesn’t strike out many guys, they have to rely more on their defense, and depending on the quality of the defense, a pitcher can look really good or really bad.
I don’t think IP are important for the Cy Young. What if a pitcher had a 0.00 ERA, but only pitched 100 innings? Are you saying he doesn’t deserve the award because he didn’t reach some arbitrary innings pitched mark? No, I think that pitcher would probably deserve it.
by blindsided789 on Nov 11, 2009 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
sorry
FIP is Fielding Independent Pitching, not ERA. Also, you were right about the point of the award, its not to evaluate talent, but performance for the previous year.
by blindsided789 on Nov 11, 2009 10:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am familiar with FIP
But I still think ERA (or more accurately, adj ERA+) are better for past performance. In your example in the first paragraph, the pitcher with a 3.50 ERA and a 1.50 WHIP—-you are right, you really wouldn’t want him, he could blow up any time. That, however, is irrelevant to judging past performance—-he didn’t blow up beyond the 3.50 ERA.
I am ambivalent on FIP usage for past performance. On the one hand, a pitcher is not his defense, so it has value. On the other hand, a pitcher knows the defense he has and can use it. FIP, for example, would punish a Mariners’ pitcher in 2009 when he didn’t try to particularly strike people out because he knew his OF could track down any fly ball. My other problem with FIP is that it is too K-dependent.
I disagree with your comment that ground outs aren’t as good as K’s because they have a greater chance of being hits. Being ground outs, they are, by definition, outs. Yes, ground balls have a greater chance of being hits, but when evaluating past performance, we already know how many became hits.
As for IP, it is a sliding scale. 100 IP of 0.00 ERA is definitely going to win against normal pitching performances. However, it should lose easily to a pitcher with 200 IP of 0.30 ERA. All I am saying with IP is that it is a consideration—-all other things being equal, the guy who threw more innings at the same quality is better. I don’t have any particular mark a pitcher must hit to be good enough for a Cy Young, it is just a consideration.
I guess my theory is simple—-a pitcher’s job is to make outs without giving up runs. Therefore, my evaluation of past performance is geared towards how well a pitcher accomplished those goals. Giving up 1 runs in a game in Coors is better than doing it in Petco, so I will consider park factors (hence adj. ERA+), but that’s about as far as I go. It is completely different when considering future performance, but for past performance I think it works well enough. Yeah, I would love to have any easy stat to filter out strand rates by relievers on the runners they left when they left the game, but alas, I am not aware of such a stat that doesn’t include factors I don’t consider relevant. If there was such a stat, I would definitely want to look at that.
FWIW, when I usually get into this discussion, it is regarding Glavine’s HOF credentials. His peripherals were more or less crap. Yet he got it done year after year. Looking back on his career, I don’t think it matters how many baserunners he allowed that he didn’t let score. After 20+ years, you can’t chalk it up to luck. (On the other hand, Glavine’s are very rare, when anyone talks about the next Glavine when a pitcher has iffy peripherals but one good season, I am very bearish on the pitcher. [See Ramirez, Horatio]).
by cavebird on Nov 11, 2009 10:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Haha, ground outs was, obviously, a typo.
I meant ground balls. I know that strikeouts and ground outs are both outs.
You said you would rely on ERA and IP mainly. I’m just saying there are many different factors to determining a pitcher’s performance, and ERA and IP are two that can be misleading as to how a pitcher actually pitched.
When I get into this discussion, I usually bring up Jorge Sosa’s 2005 season, when he had a sparkling 2.55 ERA. This, despite having terrible peripherals. I think anyone that watched him pitch will tell you that 2.55 was a complete mirage, because he was on the edge of allowing runs every second. If I had a choice of him at 2.55 or Lincecum at 3.00, I would take Lincecum every time.
I don’t think either of us is gonna convince the other to their way of thinking, so I think we should just agree to disagree. Good discussion though.
by blindsided789 on Nov 11, 2009 11:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I, too, enjoyed the discussion...
…and I agree that Sosa’s 2005 was a mirage. However, for 2005, I’ll take a 2.55 ERA over a 3.00 ERA every time. For going forward, I’d still non-tender him. I think it comes down to me thinking the award should go to the best performance as opposed to the pitcher who showed the most talent. Since the criteria is more or less simply the “best pitcher” either theory is reasonable.
by cavebird on Nov 11, 2009 11:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The BBWAA, who will ultimately determine who the true CY winner is, are in love with strikeouts. Look no further than last year’s Lincecum over Webb race – Webb was a one-man groundball machine, and the IPs were literally 0.1IP different in Timmy’s favor, and Timmy had a better ERA. Webb had four more winning decisions, which nobody here cares about, but the BBWAA does. But Lincecum had 82 more Ks than Webb, and that put him over the top.
I love Javy, but it’s really a two-man race for the CY – Lincecum’s Ks vs. Wainwright’s wins. And by all right, it will probably go to Lincecum, again.
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on Nov 11, 2009 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I hope so.
I think Lincecum deserves to win.
by blindsided789 on Nov 11, 2009 12:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No Cain?
Lincecum
Carpenter
Wainwright
Cain
Jurrjens
Haren
Vazquez
Josh Johnson
Ubalddo
Kershaw
Wolf
Lee (NL CY)
by Drom John on Nov 11, 2009 10:07 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
you think Lee wins the NL Cy?
you are talking about Cliff Lee right? Lee is not your pet name for Tim Lincecum is it?
Cliff Lee in no way deserves to be in the top-15 of NL Cy Young vote getters. I see you point, though, because he pitched well coming over, but the Cy Young is for a season of work, not 2 months.
by apoxonbothyourhouses on Nov 11, 2009 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“I see you point, though, because he pitched well coming over”
Actually, he didn’t even pitch all THAT well after coming over. his first five starts he was great, but then he had like a 6.20 ERA or something for the month of September. He had one stellar month in the NL. If he gets a single vote, even for last place, on the BBWAA ballot we will have to burn the BBWAA in effigy for displaying retardation on a level that gives the mentally handicapped a bad name.
by J-Freak on Nov 11, 2009 7:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is about how I would’ve voted, but like Hobbs I would’ve probably voted Wainwright over Carpenter. I do think they had a chance to win it, and its a shame that the Cards had to get bounced in the playoffs cause I was really looking forward to those two pitching more in the playoffs. I didn’t get the see them at all this year.
by soup du jour on Nov 11, 2009 11:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
According to Fangraph's WAR table...
It should go down like this:
1. Lincecum
2. Vazquez
3. Haren
4. Wainwright
5. Jimenez
6. Carpenter
7. Josh Johnson
8. Joel Pineiro
I’m surprised that so many people voted for Carpenter and Wainwright for first, and also surprised no one voted Vasquez for first.
by blindsided789 on Nov 11, 2009 12:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
If there was no Lincecum
Javy would get some first place votes. In the triple-crown categories, Lincecum has an edge on Javy in all three, but he also nudges him out in W-L%, IP, Hits allowed, ERs allowed. Javy’s superior BB/9 and WHIP isn’t enough to make anyone think he deserves any more first place votes than Timmy.
As for the Cards, I think people were in love with Wainwright’s 19 wins, and Carpenter’s stellar ratios, but in all honesty, I think Wainwright deserves a good portion of the first place votes, but not enough to surpass Lincecum.
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on Nov 11, 2009 12:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why do you think Wainwright deserves a good portion of first-place votes? Because of his wins and ERA?
by blindsided789 on Nov 11, 2009 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He had a solid year, in general
He certainly is worthy of some first place consideration. He won a ton of games, and his numbers are often overshadowed by Lincecum and Javy’s, but he did his own share of striking out batters, keeping his ERA low, and not walking an egregious amount of batters. Just step back and look—his numbers are outstanding.
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on Nov 11, 2009 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He might be worthy of a debate, but he most certainly has NOT earned first place, on any scale. Lincecum is miles ahead of everyone else, and Javy and Haren would both still deserve it before Wainwright would.
by J-Freak on Nov 11, 2009 7:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He did have a very good year. But I don’t really think he’s worthy of first place votes. Besides the wins, he was outpitched everywhere else.
by blindsided789 on Nov 11, 2009 10:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Am I the only one
who thinks Vasquez had a better year than Wainwright? Wainwright was outstanding this year, but Javy’s numbers are better. The only two things Wainwright has on Javy are wins and ERA – the two most overrated pitching stats.
I think it should go more like this…
1) Lincecum
2) Carpenter
3) Vasquez
You say to-mah-to, I say you're retarded.
by alligatorimpersonator on Nov 11, 2009 2:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Why is ERA an overrated stat?
Isn’t it the most important stat for a pitcher? (Okay, adjusted ERA+ is much better, but that’s more or less what I am talking about.) ERA is a crappy stat to predict future performance, but it is one of the best stats for past performance—-the whole point of pitching is to log innings and not give up runs. No peripheral in the world will make a guy who gave up more runs more effective than the pitcher who gave up less runs for the past period in which the first guy gave up more runs.
by cavebird on Nov 11, 2009 6:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't get me wrong...
…If I look at the stats, I would guess that Vazquez would have a better year next year than Wainwright based upon peripherals, but that has absolutely nothing to do with evaluating who was better in 2009.
by cavebird on Nov 11, 2009 6:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But Vazquez was better.
If you look at his stats for this year, he pitched better than Wainwright. Better K/9, better BB/9, better WHIP, better FIP…pretty much everything. Wainwright has the edge on wins because Vazquez had crappy run support, and ERA because Wainwright got lucky in some situations (80.4 LOB%, about 9% above league average).
by blindsided789 on Nov 11, 2009 10:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But was Vazquez better at what mattered?
i.e. making outs while giving up the fewest runs possible? As for wins, I agree they are irrelevant. I guess when the year is over and we are looking back I give the pitcher credit for his luck (when it is luck, sometimes a fly ball is a pop-up and it was a good pitch, but most stats don’t factor this in, and some pitchers do pitch better with runners on such as Glavine) because I am looking for the pitcher who got the best results, not necessarily the one with the most talent. That’s a totally separate issue.
by cavebird on Nov 11, 2009 10:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that Vazquez, by allowing fewer baserunners, and allowing fewer balls to be put in play gave his team the better chance to win every time out. Just because he might have had one or two starts where he gave up a too many runs doesn’t mean that his overall season was worse.
by blindsided789 on Nov 11, 2009 11:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree on one point and disagree on the other
If there was a good enough metric to show that a pitcher (say Vazquez) gave up runs in bunches and had a ton of great starts and just a couple of real clunkers, while the other pitcher was more consistent, I could see some merit in considering that. I don’t know a good stat that reflects it, however.
On the other hand, I don’t think that baserunners given up who do not score lessen the team’s chance of winning, so I don’t give WHIP much consideration when evaluating past performance. (Obviously, as with everything else, trying to evaluate future performance is a totally separate matter. The guy I think should win the Cy Young is not necessarily the guy I want on my team for next year.)
by cavebird on Nov 11, 2009 11:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
