AL Cy Young

Santana's last 3 starts (losses) against Cleveland:

4 runs, 6 hits, 6 IP
4 runs, 10 hits, 6 IP
5 runs, 6 hits, 6 IP


bad pitching!

 

He did not pitch well enough to win in any of those games. It is not a matter of run support when you're the ace and you still need your team to score 5 or 6 runs to win a game.

Wins is not the be-all, end-all but I'd hardly call it a meaningless stat .... the idea is still to win games, however that happens.

And here's my problem with making run support so almighty:
If you're up 2-0 in the 7th or 8th and give up 3 and lose 3-2... well, poor guy only got 2 runs from his offense.
BULLSHIT. If you're the ace, protect the lead.

 

Did not say that Junkie.
But to say wins are meaningless stat is equally ridiculous.

 

But you can not call wins meaningless.

 

Wins are not meaningless, and low run-support can only get you so many votes. Want proof? Look at the 2004 NL Cy Young race between Clemens and Randy Johnson. http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_2004.shtml#NLcya

Johnson beat Clemens in every in nearly every statistical category but wins. Granted, Johnson had 11 losses to Clemens' 4, but if run support was such a big measure of how tough a pitcher had it, the vote would have been closer than 140-97.

The same can be said the next year when Clemens lost to Willis and Carpenter. The latter two had 22 and 21 wins, respectively, but Clemens -- playing in Houston with a surplus of powerless hitters -- only had 13, with a 1.87 ERA and 185 strikeouts. Clemens received only 40 points.

Wins matter much more in a season than they do over the course of a 20-year career.

 

It is interesting if you look at things without wins:
SPLIT G IP H R HR BB SO P/GS WHIP BAA ERA
P1 30 195.0 162 74 30 45 203 98.8 1.06 .225 3.14
P2 27 177.0 169 67 12 36 167 98.8 1.16 .246 3.25
P3 31 220.0 218 85 19 33 185 105.2 1.14 .260 3.15

P1 has the most Ks, lowest WHIP, best ERA, best BAA, 2nd highest IP. He's allowed the most HRs, but they must be a lot of solo shots becuase, well, the ERA is fine.
P2 looks like the worst (although, obviously still very good) with the highest ERA, fewest IP, second highest BAA., highest WHIP.
P3 is in the middle. A very close ERA, worst BAA. in the middle in WHIP and Ks, most IP.

1 is of course Santana, 2 Beckett, 3 Sabathia.
Not making an argument about the value of W's, just thought it was interesting to compare the 3 without them.

 

No, it usually does. There are a few major exceptions, such as Johnson in '02 and Santana in '05. But usually, the best pitcher and the one who wins the most games are not very far apart, if at all. It's the glaring errors we notice. But that's why they're exceptions.

When taken to this extreme, of course, you're right. But on the field, in real life, it rarely works that way. Over time, a pitcher with a 6.00 ERA is going to lose far more often than he's going to win. And a pitcher with a 1.00 ERA is going to win far more often than a pitcher with a 6.00 ERA.

Here's a less extreme example:

Starter A takes a 5-2 lead into the seventh, gives up two runs but wins 5-4.
Starter B takes a 1-0 lead into the seventh, gives up a two-run homer and loses 2-1.

Starter B pitched better. Starter A -- with better run support -- won the game. Which starter was more valuable? Which starter did his job more effectively?

There's no wrong answer.

 

Carmona is likely to win the ERA title with no starts left at 3.06.
Do you think Sabathia and Carmona are going to cancel each other out for the Cy?

 

I would think Beckett is a lock at this point.

 

19 wins and a 3.06 ERA and Carmona will be lucky to finish third.

I agree that Beckett will get it and Sabathia will probably finish second.

 

Can't imagine why. (OK, I can imagine why.) But hard to say that Beckett has outpitched Sabathia this year. C.C is beating him in GS, CG, IP, BB and SO. Those four extra starts are huge, considering the Indians are a half-game ahead of the Red Sox for the best record in the AL.

http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/league_leaders.jsp?c_id=mlb&section2=null&statSet2=null&sortByStat=ERA&statType=2&timeFrame=1&timeSubFrame=2007&baseballScope=mlb&prevPage2=1&readBoxes=true&compare.x=22&compare.y=6&box5=XXXX433584cleX&box6=XXXX407793anaX&box9=XXXX277417bosX&box12=XXXX282332cleX&box13=XXXX276371minX

Player W L ERA G GS CG SHO SV SVO IP H R ER HR HBP BB SO
2. J Lackey LAA 18-9 3.11 32 32 2 2 0 0 217.0 217 87 75 18 12 52 177
3. J Beckett BOS 20-6 3.14 29 29 1 0 0 0 194.2 179 71 68 15 5 40 188
4. C Sabathia CLE 18-7 3.19 33 33 4 1 0 0 234.0 230 91 83 19 8 36 205

(bold does not denote leading the league, just leading this comparison of three AL CYA candidates. I don't think Carmona has a shot in hell, regardless of the ERA title.)

 

I know wins can be overrated, but here's an award where an even number like 20 can score major points -- no pun intended -- with the voters. Beckett's go Sabathia in ERA, albeit a small margin, and wins -- two-third's of the triple crown. I think that'll make a world of difference come voting time.