NL Cy Young award
Posted by Andy on October 23, 2009
Below is a poll for the National League Cy Young award. As with my poll for the AL award,the 10 guys I put on the ballot are based on the Cy Young Predictor formula (developed by Bill James and Rob Neyer), which can be seen right here on ESPN.com. Keep in mind that this award is based only on regular-season performance, so please try to ignore anything good or bad you've seen in the post-season.
Also here are some stats (and links to each player) you can use to research your vote.
Here are all the NL pitchers this year to make at least 28 starts, strike out at least 144 batters, and win at least 14 games:
Cnt GS SO W Year Age Tm Lg G CG SHO GF L W-L% SV IP H R ER BB ERA ERA+ HR BF HBP +----+-----------------+---+---+---+--+----+---+---+--+---+--+---+--+--+-----+--+-----+---+---+---+---+------+----+--+----+---+ 1 Matt Cain 33 171 14 2009 24 SFG NL 33 4 0 0 8 .636 0 217.2 184 73 70 73 2.89 148 22 886 3 2 Chris Carpenter 28 144 17 2009 34 STL NL 28 3 1 0 4 .810 0 192.2 156 49 48 38 2.24 185 7 750 7 3 Jorge de la Rosa 32 193 16 2009 28 COL NL 33 0 0 0 9 .640 0 185 172 95 90 83 4.38 103 20 799 9 4 Danny Haren 33 223 14 2009 28 ARI NL 33 3 1 0 10 .583 0 229.1 192 83 80 38 3.14 143 27 909 4 5 Ubaldo Jimenez 33 198 15 2009 25 COL NL 33 1 0 0 12 .556 0 218 183 87 84 85 3.47 130 13 914 10 6 Josh Johnson 33 191 15 2009 25 FLA NL 33 2 0 0 5 .750 0 209 184 77 75 58 3.23 129 14 855 6 7 Jair Jurrjens 34 152 14 2009 23 ATL NL 34 0 0 0 10 .583 0 215 186 71 62 75 2.60 160 15 884 3 8 Tim Lincecum 32 261 15 2009 25 SFG NL 32 4 2 0 7 .682 0 225.1 168 69 62 68 2.48 173 10 905 6 9 Wandy Rodriguez 33 193 14 2009 30 HOU NL 33 1 1 0 12 .538 0 205.2 192 77 69 63 3.02 138 21 849 5 10 Javier Vazquez 32 238 15 2009 32 ATL NL 32 3 0 0 10 .600 0 219.1 181 75 70 44 2.87 145 20 874 4 11 Adam Wainwright 34 212 19 2009 27 STL NL 34 1 0 0 8 .704 0 233 216 75 68 66 2.63 158 17 970 3
This includes all the starting pitchers in the poll below.
Here are all the NL pitchers with at least 36 saves this season.
Cnt SV Year Age Tm Lg G GS CG SHO GF W L W-L% IP H R ER BB SO ERA ERA+ HR BF HBP +----+-----------------+---+--+----+---+---+--+---+---+--+---+--+--+--+-----+-----+---+---+---+---+---+------+----+--+----+---+ 1 Heath Bell 42 2009 31 SDP NL 68 0 0 0 59 6 4 .600 69.2 54 21 21 24 79 2.71 138 3 278 0 2 Jonathan Broxton 36 2009 25 LAD NL 73 0 0 0 58 7 2 .778 76 44 24 22 29 114 2.61 160 4 300 1 3 Francisco Cordero 39 2009 34 CIN NL 68 0 0 0 59 2 6 .250 66.2 58 21 16 30 58 2.16 204 2 276 0 4 Ryan Franklin 38 2009 36 STL NL 62 0 0 0 54 4 3 .571 61 49 13 13 24 44 1.92 217 2 250 1 5 Trevor Hoffman 37 2009 41 MIL NL 55 0 0 0 46 3 2 .600 54 35 11 11 14 48 1.83 229 2 210 1 6 Brian Wilson 38 2009 27 SFG NL 68 0 0 0 60 5 6 .455 72.1 60 27 22 27 83 2.74 156 3 303 1
This includes all the relievers in the poll.
One more thing...the AL poll got more than 400 votes. Even if you don't normally post comments on this blog, I'd love to hear why you made your selection. This is a great time to post your first comment!
Finally, here's the poll:
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:35 am
Lincecum, easily. He pitched circles around Wainwright (by FIP and such), and pitched both better than and 30 more innings than Carpenter. I don't think he will win, but he should.
Vazquez should be second, but I bet he doesn't even get a 3rd place vote in the real thing.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:35 am
I liked Lincecum and Cain for much of the year, but both kind of limped home in September. Carpenter missed action twice in the first half, but was so good after the break that I gave him the edge. Another extremely close race. I'm a lot more confident in giving Carpenter the "comeback" award.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
It will probably be Lincecum. I find the Cy Young and MVP awards interesting for a couple of reasons.
First, the Cy Young award is the "Most Valuable Pitcher Award." That's what it says on the plaque. So why don't we hold the Cy Young winner to the same standards that we hold the MVP award winner? That is, pitchers from non-playoff (or even losing) teams often win without any argument or controversy. On the basis of the MVP voting process, Carpenter would win since his team won the division. Albert Pujols or Ryan Howard will be the MVP top vote-getters, but you'd never vote for H. Ramirez, Sandoval or Fielder because their teams didn't win anything.
Secondly, it irritates me to see pitchers receive votes for MVP. As I said, they have their own award, and pitchers shouldn't get votes for MVP. They don't play every day. But invariably, some pitchers will garner votes, especially when there is no clear-cut MVP. That won't happen this year, but it has happened in the past.
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
"Secondly, it irritates me to see pitchers receive votes for MVP. As I said, they have their own award, and pitchers shouldn't get votes for MVP."
Technically, batters have their own award too: the Hank Aaron Award. They also have the Silver Sluggers and Gold Gloves. Granted the HAA doesn't have the prestige of the Cy Young, but that's merely a perception bias because of its relative "newness" and open voting system. Basically the CY is viewed as a great honor bestowed upon the best pitcher. The HAA is viewed as a nice achievement. Is there anything intrinsic about the HAA that makes it less valuable? No, it's all a public perception thing. The whole "they have their own award" argument is based on the idea that the HAA doesn't equal the CY, but the only reason it's inferior is because we have declared it inferior.
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Well no, the batters' award is the MVP. I've never heard of the Hank Aaron Award, but if it's not voted by the BWA then it's not the same thing. My argument wasn't which award is "superior," but that pitchers shouldn't get MVP votes. It's pretty simple really.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Aperziosi-
It's not simple, it's simplistic reasoning. You have decided, arbitrarily, the the Cy Young is important and that the MVP is important because the BBRWAA choose it. Why are they any better arbiter than those who vote for the HAA? If recent history tells us anything, they are pretty inept. And by claiming that you have never heard of it, well, since when does being the most naive person in a conversation qualify as a talking point? It is Most Valuable Player, not Most Valuable Hitter, and last I checked, pitchers were players.
Now, there are reasonable arguments against choosing a pitcher as the MVP most years, primarily based on their workloads compared to everyday players. But, your argument... well... not much to stand on there.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Do you think Jeter should have gotten to that ball off Vlad's bat in the 7th? Would a top fielder have made it?
That was the game...
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:16 pm
I don't know where Jeter was set up, of course, but I was a bit surprised he didn't get that close. After looking better than he has in a long time for much of the season, I think he's regressed defensively over the last couple months.
October 24th, 2009 at 7:29 am
Bskazzy:
Since you chose to insult me, I'll choose to insult you. First, you spelled my name wrong which indicates ignorance. Secondly, there IS a difference between MVP and Cy Young awards. It says so on the trophy. Pitchers ARE NOT players. Even a nitwit like you should know that. They don't play every day. What is so hard for you to understand about that? Voters who include pitchers in the MVP award should have their voting privileges revoked.
I haven't "decided arbitrarily" Major League baseball has decided. MLB recognizes certain awards and doesn't recognize others. It has nothing to do with me. The HAA is an afterthought.
There's plenty to stand on. History and fact among them. Why should a pitcher win both awards? Would you vote a hitter to win the Cy Young? No, it's a pitchers' award, just like the MVP is an everyday player award. Open your mind.
The Cy Young and MVP awards have history that the Hank Aaron award does not. That is why they are respected more than something that was made up as an afterthought. How many awards do we need? And why do some people believe we can't have just one winner?
October 24th, 2009 at 7:42 am
I just checked. The long and storied history of the Hank Aaron Award goes back to 1999.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Ok. First of all, everybody calm down and resume being polite. I don't want to have to start deleting comments and banning users, but I'll do it if things get out of control.
Secondly--here's where I disagree with Apreziosi. If you look at a metric like Win Shares, the really great pitchers can sometimes rank among the overall leaders. In 2008 for example, Tim Lincecum was tied for 12th overall in Win Shares (with 27) while the top 3 guys were Berkman (38) Pujols (35) and Beltran (33). Obviously Lincecum shouldn't have been MVP, but my point is that a really good starting pitcher can have a pretty big overall impact on a team. Lincecum was definitely the Giants team MVP, as the next-highest guy was #48 Randy Winn. There is no doubt that through the 162-game season, Lincecum was more valuable to his team than any single position player, despite playing only once ever 5 days.
Here are the highest pitchers in Win Shares for earlier years:
2007 Sabathia (t-26th)
2006 Santana (t-26th)
2005 Willis (t-26th)
2004 Santana (t-18th)
Lincecum is the highest ranking pitcher in a while, but if we went back further I'm sure there is the occasional pitcher to crack the top 10 in Win Shares, meaning he's worthy of at least a few MVP votes.
It is usual for casual baseball fans to overrate the offensive contributions of position players. Yeah, guys like Pujols, Fielder, Howard, etc are extremely valuable, more valuable in most years than any single starting pitcher. But take a merely "really good" hitter like Utley, Adrian Gonzalez, Ethier, or any guy in this very high tier, in most seasons they will be about as valuable as the best starting pitcher in baseball for that season.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Though Win Shares pretty regularly has the top pitchers valued substantially lower than the top everyday players, Wins Above Replacement ("WAR", versions of which have been developed by Sean Smith and by fangraphs.com) shows a much more competitive situation between the top starters and the top everyday guys. The top three in the AL this season in WAR according to fangraphs are Zach Greinke 9.4, Ben Zobrist 8.5, Joe Mauer 8.2. The top three in the NL are Albert Pujols 8.4, Chase Utley 7.7, Tim Lincecum 7.5.
Sabermetrics has gotten pretty good at gathering a consensus about comparisons among hitters and comparisons among pitchers, but the issue of comparing the relative values of hitting, pitching and fielding for purposes of developing an overall value metric remains pretty uncertain among even the most careful and sophisticated analysts of baseball numbers. Lincecum on the mound faced 905 batters this season, Pujols came to the plate 700 times. Pujols participated more on defense than Lincecum. Lincecum himself came to the plate as a batter 86 times, and hit like a pitcher. When Pujols comes to bat the defenses he faces vary from game to game. When Lincecum pitches he pretty much has the same defense behind him each game. Comparing the value of a Lincecum and a Pujols on the same metric is mind-bendingly tricky, and certain difficult-to-prove assumptions about the relative value of pitching, hitting and defense can significantly effect the actual values one assigns to pitchers and everyday players will vary depending on such assumptions. Win Shares and WAR make different assumptions about the relative values of pitching, hitting and defense, and the common-metric results for individual players thus come out differently, despite the wide agreement of the different systems on who the best hitters are and who the best pitchers are. It may well be a good and sensible thing that the tradition has developed of treating the MVP as the most valuable everyday player award and the Cy Young as the most valuable pitcher aweard.
October 24th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
WAR or WPA were what I really wanted to go for in my explanation above but I couldn't find the data....I love fangraphs.com but I find it difficult to locate data on that site. Thanks for your detailed explanation, birtelcom.
October 24th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
In making my picks, I focus on defense-independent numbers such as strikeouts, walks, the ratio between the two, and home runs, but I also look at ERA, WHIP, and opposition batting average and slugging. I ignore wins and the team's overall standing. Ultimately, I found Lincecum and Carenter to be relatively even in terms of per-inning value, but Lincecum gets the nod due to his large lead in innings pitched.
October 24th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Apreziosi-
Your argument is an emotional one, not a rational one. Should we avoid all new developments and ignore their significance because they lack a long and storied history? The Wild Card is new... should we not acknowledge Wild Card teams that won the World Series because of its lack of history?
Pitchers are players. They play on the team. Do they play everyday? Nope. But they play on the team. You can't deny that. Hell, in the NL, they even bat! And they all play defense. I acknowledge that there contributions in today's game, generally speaking, pale in comparison to hitters. In that regard, I would agree that most years, a pitcher does not deserve to be the MVP most years.
And you are being arbitrary, because MLB does acknowledge the Hank Aaron award, but you choose not to. Why is that?
MLB has a variety of awards. Cy Young is for best pitcher. HAA is for best offensive player (ignore defensive contributions). Golden Glove is for best defender at each position. Silver Slugger is for best hitter at each position. ROY is for best rookie (based on MLB's definition of a rookie, which at least one recent voter chose to ignore). MVP is for Most Valuable Player. MLB sets the criteria and includes pitchers as eligible. Obviously, these awards carry with them different levels of prestige, but as someone pointed out above, that is largely a perceptual matter. MLB does not officially rank them.
So, the FACTS remain. Pitchers are, in fact, Major League Baseball players. Their IS an MLB sanctioned award for the best offensive producer, albeit one chosen in a different matter than most other major awards. Their is an MLB award for best pitcher. And there is one for the Most Valuable Player, with all Major Leaguers eligible.
October 24th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
A few more points:
The ballot instructions mailed out to each voter each year are:
"There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier. The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:
1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.
2. Number of games played.
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
4. Former winners are eligible.
5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.
You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from one to ten. A tenth-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all ten places on your ballot. Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, and that includes pitchers and designated hitters. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration."
That pretty clearly states that pitchers are eligible and should be considered.
Also, the MVP, as we know it, was not given out until 1931 and, at the time, was not officially recognized by the league. Does that mean those early winners didn't REALLY get anything worthwhile since, at the time, the award lacked a storied history? At what point does something gain a history? And when does it become storied? In 50 years, will the HAA matter? Again, it's arbitrary to decide that an award does not have merit because it is "new". At some point, all awards are new.