1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Cy Young Awards thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Dick Whitman, Sep 28, 2012.

  1. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    After watching his head explode nightly last year over being told that Mike Morse doesn't walk enough, I want to be here when Moddy reads that Gio Gonzalez walks too many.
     
  2. Moderator1

    Moderator1 Moderator Staff Member

    He does walk too many still, no question about that. Gets it under control faster though, which is a sign of progress. He had a chance to shit the bed in Philadelphia after a terrible first inning and didn't give up squat the rest of the way. Last year he's out of there in the third.

    He has a huge set, which is also a plus.

    He's had one hell of a year. I'm not going to argue him over Dickey. I am going to say he belongs in the discussion and "on the podium" if you will.

    Morse only hit two HRs in that Philly game, once of which landed in the Nats bullpen. Should be more patient up there, no question.
     
  3. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Well, no need for me to post on this thread.
     
  4. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    What's with Nats fans worrying about Gio Gonzalez being left out of the discussion? Sonner said something about that, too. Nobody is going to leave him out. He is an easy pick for the top three. Dickey has been better and should win the award, but Gonzalez is probably second, no worse than third. Kershaw belongs in the discussion, too.
     
  5. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    So Verlander it is.
     
  6. JackReacher

    JackReacher Well-Known Member

    I never said I was worried that Gio was being left out of the discussion. I said I was simply happy he was IN the discussion.
     
  7. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    Number of starts for each pitcher that I would call fair to shitty...

    King Felix - 11
    Verlander - 7
    Price - 2
    Sale - 7
    Weaver - 5
    Harrison - 10


    And only one pitcher on this list was not essentially pitching for an eventual playoff spot with each start.
     
  8. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    This is more about MVP than CYA, but I don't feel like starting a MVP thread.

    Anyway, Sean Forman makes a fantastic response to the backlash against WAR by certain baseball writers:

    http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/2012/09/how-many-baseball-writers-have-called-or-e-mailed-to-talk-to-me-about-what-goes-into-war-zero/
     
  9. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Generally speaking, WAR tries to measure the immeasurable. For instance, defensive stats are notoriously flawed. And it doesn't look like they include "clutch stats" (maybe they do but I missed it in a quick glance). I understand that clutch doesn't exist in this world, but in a given year it can, and it can make a big difference. Similarly, people always want to mark down Cy Young candidates who had unusually low BABIP because they got lucky -- maybe so, but they did produce in that given year.

    But overall, there's a philosophical belief that WAR is trying to put a number on something that can't have a number. And once you get to that, I'm not sure what's Sean Forman is going to say.

    If I were to ask Forman something, it would be this: I have made mention several times here of Ubaldo Jimenez beating Roy Halladay in WAR in 2010. I find accounts online from October 2010 that this was the case, so I am pretty sure I am not misremembering it and didn't get it wrong back then. But now when I look it up I see that Halladay was 1.0 ahead of Jimenez.

    So if I'm right about how I'm remembering this, why is it so different now? And if I'm right and the formula did change, why should we trust this year's version for purposes of award voting?
     
  10. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    BTW here is one of those contemporaneous accounts noting Jimenez beat Halladay in WAR.

    http://www.purplerow.com/2010/10/14/1750349/purple-row-awards-top-pitcher-ubaldo-jimenez

    Yet you look today at the 2010 figures and it's Halladay 8.3, Jimenez 7.3.
     
  11. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Absolutely. There are many, many people in the sabermetric world that only use offensive WAR, or oWAR, for this reason.

    And the major difference between Baseball-Reference's calculation of WAR and FanGraphs' calculation of WAR is because they use two different defensive measures.

    That said, even by oWAR, Trout is still ranked ahead of Cabrera: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_off_top_ten.shtml.


    What are "clutch stats"?

    Batting average in late-and-close situations? Batting average with RISP? Those are easily found.

    Trout:

    Code:
                                                                                                                               
    Split          G GS  PA AB  R   H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB  SO   BA  OBP  SLG  OPS  TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB ROE BAbip tOPS+ sOPS+
    2 outs RISP      54  62    49  14  3  0  0  16  7  0 12  15 .286 .435 .347 .782  17   0   1  0  0   3   0  .412    73   122
    Late  Close      60  71    62  17  2  0  2  10  6  0  7  17 .274 .338 .403 .741  25   0   0  0  2   2   0  .333    59   117
    Tie Game        122 200   182  60 13  2  9  18 15  1 14  40 .330 .385 .571 .956 104   1   3  0  1   2   4  .381   101   157
    Within 1 R      132 327   295  95 18  4 14  35 27  2 27  71 .322 .382 .553 .935 163   2   3  0  2   2   5  .382    97   155
    Within 2 R      133 418   374 121 22  6 16  47 33  4 36  84 .324 .383 .543 .926 203   4   3  0  5   3   6  .376    95   152
    Within 3 R      133 491   435 142 25  6 20  61 34  4 46 101 .326 .391 .549 .940 239   5   4  0  6   3   7  .381    98   157
    Within 4 R      133 532   470 154 25  6 24  69 41  4 51 107 .328 .393 .560 .952 263   5   4  0  7   3   7  .376   101   161
    Margin 4 R       45  83    69  19  0  1  5  10  6  0 13  25 .275 .398 .522 .919  36   2   1  0  0   1   0  .359    95   155
    Ahead            89 228   190  62  9  2 10  28 19  2 34  49 .326 .430 .553 .982 105   4   2  0  2   2   1  .391   109   166
    Behind           70 187   167  51  3  3 10  33 13  1 16  43 .305 .358 .539 .897  90   2   0  0  4   0   2  .347    88   153
    
    Cabrera:

    Code:
                                                                                                                               
    Split          G GS  PA AB  R   H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO   BA  OBP  SLG   OPS  TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB ROE BAbip tOPS+ sOPS+
    2 outs RISP      51  57    50  21  3  0  4  29  0  0  7  7 .420 .491 .720 1.211  36   0   0  0  0   6   0  .436   145   238
    Late  Close      81 101    88  30  4  0  7  21  0  0 12 13 .341 .426 .625 1.051  55   3   1  0  0   4   0  .338   112   206
    Tie Game        136 218   197  68 15  0 11  37  0  0 19 30 .345 .404 .589  .993 116   7   1  0  1   5   0  .363   101   167
    Within 1 R      151 362   316 102 24  0 16  57  1  1 42 49 .323 .403 .551  .954 174  15   2  0  2  11   0  .340    94   161
    Within 2 R      154 498   437 139 31  0 28  87  2  1 55 72 .318 .394 .581  .975 254  18   2  0  4  15   1  .326    97   165
    Within 3 R      155 576   508 162 33  0 32 105  4  1 59 86 .319 .389 .573  .962 291  20   3  0  6  15   2  .328    94   163
    Within 4 R      156 625   554 179 37  0 38 117  4  1 62 94 .323 .390 .596  .986 330  24   3  0  6  16   3  .329    98   169
    Margin 4 R       32  58    55  20  3  0  5  19  0  0  3  3 .364 .397 .691 1.087  38   4   0  0  0   0   1  .319   116   196
    Ahead           100 251   218  67 11  0 19  50  4  1 29 38 .307 .382 .619 1.002 135  10   0  0  4  11   2  .291   100   167
    Behind           93 214   194  64 14  0 13  49  0  0 17 29 .330 .388 .603  .991 117  11   2  0  1   0   2  .333    99   179
    

    If they make a big difference, fine. Use them in your argument.

    But why do they have to go into WAR for WAR to be useful?

    Unless you think WAR is the be-all, end-all stat ... and most credible sabermetric writers (again, I can't vouch for everyone who writes about sabermetrics on the Internet any more than a sports journalist can vouch for anyone who writes for Bleacher Report or Patch) don't think you should use WAR as the only factor in evaluating a player.

    If you don't want to use WAR when figuring out who you think should be the MVP, then don't use it. But if you're ignoring all the factors that go into WAR — hitting, baserunning, fielding — then what are you basing your decision on?

    Verlander had an unusually low BABIP last year. I don't remember anyone credible trying to "mark him down" because he "got lucky." I'd be interested to know who these people are. Are they random bloggers (you can find anyone on the Internet writing anything stupid) or are they knowledgeable sabermetricians like Forman or Dave Cameron or Tom Tango?

    BABIP is really not that important, as an evaluative statistic, and most credible sabermetricians don't use it as a be-all, end-all number in evaluating how a pitcher performed that year.

    It's much more important as a predictive statistic, or as a factor in explaining the theory of DIPS.

    But you're not going to find anyone credible arguing that BABIP should be a major factor in award voting. A minor factor, when two or more candidates are very close in other statistics? Sure, lots of writers cherry-pick.

    I can respect that. But if that's your philosophy, as it is for someone like Bill Madden, then why would you devote an entire column to a stat you clearly don't believe is valid?

    The fact is, nobody's "forcing WAR down your throat" any more than anyone is "forcing the Triple Crown stats" down your throat. Believe whatever you want.

    Now, that's a completely valid criticism. I know Sean changed the formula earlier this year. I'm not sure how or why it affected specific WAR totals, but here's some good commentary on the changes from Tango's site.

    http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/war_updated_on_baseball_reference/

    But again, if you don't trust WAR, then don't use it. Nobody's forcing you to.

    Use whatever factors or statistics you like to make the case. I can make a much stronger case for Trout than I can for Cabrera, without even thinking about WAR. Trout's my MVP based on the fact that he's having an equally historic offensive season as Cabrera and is a far superior fielder and base-runner.

    If you think Cabrera's the MVP, then go ahead and make the case.

    But what's the point of a column blasting (anonymous) people (who you don't cite or even give examples of) for making their case for Trout? That makes no sense.

    You can write intelligently about baseball and not believe that a single-number stat like WAR can ever be accurately calculated. It's a big baseball umbrella out there and there's room for all of us under it. But I don't understand why Madden and Green and Plaschke choose the route they take on this issue. It makes them look foolish.
     
  12. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    I don't see how clutch stats wouldn't go into something that calculates a player's value in winning games. I know, I know, clutch doesn't exist. And yet, as the numbers above show, there's a pretty clear difference what happens with those two players in those situations. If you were a manager, you'd be thinking about walking Cabrera to pitch to Trout.

    Re BABIP -- I want to say it was a big factor when Lincecum beat the Cardinals duo. Unfortunately I can't find it right now, so take this for what it's worth, but if not that case, I do know it has been talked about before. In fact I remember reading the same explanation from a writer I like a lot -- hell, maybe it was you! -- that those stats are best used for predictive purposes rather than evaluating what was.

    I think you're being too kind to the sabermetric community in general as a bastion of open-mindedness. Dogma has taken root there too. (Was it WAR or OPS+ that FJM used to fixate on, to the point that he'd roundly mock anyone who ventured outside of its order.) Regarding Madden, I am sure he is responding to a lot of what he is either hearing directly from readers or seeing on message boards, other sites, etc. And if/when Cabrera does win, you can be sure he will be called an idiot throughout the Internet because of his vote.

    I would vote for Cabrera, I think, because of the clutch stats and because he has simply dominated for the last three months for a team that made up a six-game deficit. An OPS of almost 1.100 in July, August and September. Trout had one otherworldly month -- 1.259 in July -- but, with all due deference to Manky, he has retreated to becoming a very good but not dominant offensive player with monthly OPSs of .866 and .806.

    Also in reference to the WAR explainer: He writes that "you should not take any full season difference between two players of less than one to two wins to be definitive (especially when the defensive metrics are included)." WTF? That's like a 20 percent margin of error in the metric. So for this year we can't really use WAR to distinguish all that much between Robinson Cano (7.2) and Ben Zobrist (5.3).

    Is this really something people want to attach a whole lot of credibility to?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page