Mathewson Vs. Johnson

[robw1959]

Is it my misperception or does Christy seem to be gaining significant ground on Walter as of late in terms of pre-war card sales lately?

[Touch'EmAll]

In 2008, Eric Seidman wrote a very nice article entitled, "Why Cy ?" The Cy Young award started in 1956. So Seidman went back and statistically analyzed the pre-war greats to get a better fix on dominant pitchers. His results had Walter Johnson winning 8 Cy Young awards, Matty & Grove winning 7 each, G. Alexander nabbing 6 awards, and Cy Young hoisting 4 awards. Seidman thinks it should be called the "Christy Mathewson Award" and rightly so.

[oldjudge]

In 2008, Eric Seidman wrote a very nice article entitled, "Why Cy ?" The Cy Young award started in 1956. So Seidman went back and statistically analyzed the pre-war greats to get a better fix on dominant pitchers. His results had Walter Johnson winning 8 Cy Young awards, Matty & Grove winning 7 each, G. Alexander nabbing 6 awards, and Cy Young hoisting 4 awards. Seidman thinks it should be called the "Christy Mathewson Award" and rightly so.

Then why not the Walter Johnson award?

[Cooper1927]

I was awarded a Johnson...that’s probably why not...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronniehatesjazz]

I was awarded a Johnson...that’s probably why not...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL! Perhaps just the WaJo award instead?

[Topnotchsy]

Then why not the Walter Johnson award?

+1

From a WAR perspective:

Times led a league in WAR:

Walter Johnson - 8
Cy Young - 6
Christy Mathewson - 3

[Touch'EmAll]

In reading the article, the author concludes that, "Mathewson was much more dominant than Cy Young during the career of Cy Young". Maybe he was matching up actual year-for-year comparisons. Johnson pitched a little later than both Matty and Young.

[benjulmag]

In 2008, Eric Seidman wrote a very nice article entitled, "Why Cy ?" The Cy Young award started in 1956. So Seidman went back and statistically analyzed the pre-war greats to get a better fix on dominant pitchers. His results had Walter Johnson winning 8 Cy Young awards, Matty & Grove winning 7 each, G. Alexander nabbing 6 awards, and Cy Young hoisting 4 awards. Seidman thinks it should be called the "Christy Mathewson Award" and rightly so.

Question: Why Cy?
Answer: 511 career wins, 94 more than the next highest total.

[Throttlesteer]

511 wins. Almost 100 more than WaJo and 140 more than Mathewson. Longevity does count for something.

[oldjudge]

Question: Why Cy?
Answer: 511 career wins, 94 more than the next highest total.


Hi Corey! I think it is almost universally agreed that Walter Johnson was the greatest pitcher ever. His ERA is almost half a run better than Young’s. His shutout total dwarfs Young’s. There is an argument for Mathewson, albeit a weak one, but really none for Young.

[ruth_rookie]

I was awarded a Johnson...that’s probably why not...

And lemme guess... you polish it daily? I know I would if I had that impressive piece of hardware.

[benjulmag]

Hi Corey! I think it is almost universally agreed that Walter Johnson was the greatest pitcher ever. His ERA is almost half a run better than Young’s. His shutout total dwarfs Young’s. There is an argument for Mathewson, albeit a weak one, but really none for Young.

Perhaps true Jay, though to some degree it is not an accurate comparison in that Young debuted almost a generation before Johnson, and in order to know what these statistics really mean, one would need to do an analysis of how league pitching stats might have changed over that period.


That said, for purposes of creating an award that would resonate with the public, it is a lot simpler to sell a guy that was the all-time win holder with no close second.

[itjclarke]

IMO WaJo is the greatest, but I don’t think it’s entirely fair to penalize Cy for his ERA. During the early part of his career, he had to pitch through a major rule change, when they moved the mound back to its present day 60’ 6”. ERAs understandably shot up league wide. Cleveland’s team ERA increased almost 2 full runs from 1892 to 1893. Cy Young still outperformed the rest of the league in the 1890s, then had an amazing 7-8 year run during the latter part of his career (ERA barely above 2.00) as he approached 40.

To the OPs original question, I collect Matty pretty heavily and seem to have noticed an uptick over the past year or so. Not like the WaJo portrait, or the Cobbs, but each of Matty’s T206 poses seem to be creeping up, especially tougher backs. T205, and his many T202s seem pretty strong too.

[rats60]

Hi Corey! I think it is almost universally agreed that Walter Johnson was the greatest pitcher ever. His ERA is almost half a run better than Young’s. His shutout total dwarfs Young’s. There is an argument for Mathewson, albeit a weak one, but really none for Young.

He also received more votes for the Hall of Fame. So, he was seen as the better pitcher during his lifetime. I have always wondered about that. Was it his low World Series ERA? 3 Shutouts in 1905? More team success? Early death? I would take WaJo over Matty.

I agree with the article though. I would take Matty over Young. Longevity means something, but not that much. Matty's ERA is a half run better than Young, better than WaJo too, No Dodger fan would take Don Sutton over Sandy Koufax. Tom Glavine wasn't better than Pedro Martinez.

[Leon]

He also received more votes for the Hall of Fame. So, he was seen as the better pitcher during his lifetime. I have always wondered about that. Was it his low World Series ERA? 3 Shutouts in 1905? More team success? Early death? I would take WaJo over Matty.

I agree with the article though. I would take Matty over Young. Longevity means something, but not that much. Matty's ERA is a half run better than Young, better than WaJo too, No Dodger fan would take Don Sutton over Sandy Koufax. Tom Glavine wasn't better than Pedro Martinez.

Longevity means a lot more than it's getting credit for. I don't know who was best but it's hard to fault the all time win leader for having the award named after him for most wins in a season?

[Dpoolem3]

Johnson did far more

with a much worse team

Mathewson had the benefit of playing in New York

1. Young
2. Johnson
3. Matty

[Huysmans]

Longevity mean A LOT. Young is the greatest pitcher of the era in my opinion, without question, and the award is RIGHTLY named after him.

[markf31]

He also received more votes for the Hall of Fame. So, he was seen as the better pitcher during his lifetime. I have always wondered about that. Was it his low World Series ERA? 3 Shutouts in 1905? More team success? Early death? I would take WaJo over Matty.

I agree with the article though. I would take Matty over Young. Longevity means something, but not that much. Matty's ERA is a half run better than Young, better than WaJo too, No Dodger fan would take Don Sutton over Sandy Koufax. Tom Glavine wasn't better than Pedro Martinez.

Not sure HOF voting can be used for much of a barometer, or it should be taken at least with a grain of salt. Lou Crigar received 8% of HOF voting in 1937 and Johnny Kling garnered 10% of voting in 1937, both receiving more votes on the 1937 ballot than 31 other eventual HOF members and nobody would argue that either Crigar nor Kling were better than those 31 eventual HOF members. Some of those names include Evers, Chance, Simmons, Roush, Clarke, Crawford, Baker and Gehringer.

[nat]

"in order to know what these statistics really mean, one would need to do an analysis of how league pitching stats might have changed over that period."


It's been done. Let's use ERA+ (because it's easy and handy, not because it's the only think you might want to look at). It takes a player's ERA, adjusts it to account for the park he pitched in, and then compares to it league average. 100 is average, higher is better. This allows cross-era comparisons, because if Joe has a 110 ERA+ in 1920 and Mike has a 110 ERA+ in 1950 it means that, relative to his competition, Joe's ERA (after adjustments for his park) was 10% better than league average, and it means the same thing for Mike.


Cy Young

ERA+ IP
138 7356



Walter Johnson

ERA+ IP
147 5914


Christy Matthewson

ERA+ IP
136 4788


Obviously all three were all-time greats, but Matty is a clear #3 in this company.

[nat]

A few other notable pitchers:


Roger Clemens

ERA+ IP
143 4916


Lefty Grove

ERA+ IP
148 3940


Grover Cleveland Alexander

ERA+ IP
135 5190


Kid Nichols

ERA+ IP
140 5076



...how these guys compare to a more ordinary hall of famer...


Jim Bunning

ERA+ IP
115 3760


...and just for fun...

Babe Ruth

ERA+ IP
122 1221

[rhettyeakley]

Not sure HOF voting can be used for much of a barometer, or it should be taken at least with a grain of salt. Lou Crigar received 8% of HOF voting in 1937 and Johnny Kling garnered 10% of voting in 1937, both receiving more votes on the 1937 ballot than 31 other eventual HOF members and nobody would argue that either Crigar nor Kling were better than those 31 eventual HOF members. Some of those names include Evers, Chance, Simmons, Roush, Clarke, Crawford, Baker and Gehringer.

In Kling’s defense catchers are notoriously under-represented in the HOF, he compares favorably to Ray Schalk and they were both considered the best catchers of their time. On a side note, of the catchers in the 1910-1925 era I have always wondered why Wally Schang never gets any attention... Schalk was the better defensive catcher but Schang was far superior as a hitter. For my money I’d take Schang over Schalk.

[Touch'EmAll]

Gotta get a picture on this thread

[Touch'EmAll]

And a Walter Johnson

[rats60]

Not sure HOF voting can be used for much of a barometer, or it should be taken at least with a grain of salt. Lou Crigar received 8% of HOF voting in 1937 and Johnny Kling garnered 10% of voting in 1937, both receiving more votes on the 1937 ballot than 31 other eventual HOF members and nobody would argue that either Crigar nor Kling were better than those 31 eventual HOF members. Some of those names include Evers, Chance, Simmons, Roush, Clarke, Crawford, Baker and Gehringer.

Disagree. When someone is overwhelming elected it means a lot. Out of 226 voters, with the chance to vote for anyone in baseball's history, Matty had 205 vote for him. That is significant. To put it in prospective, Ruth only got 10 more votes. A guy getting 20 or 16 votes vs. 10 is irrelevant. Matty getting more votes than WaJo doesn't mean he is better, it just means he is one of the greatest pitchers of all time.

The next year with the top 5 not taking votes away, Young barely made the cut. He only got 153 votes out of 201 and finished 3rd in voting, behind Lajoie and Speaker (He had finished 8th in 1936 behind Lajoie and Speaker) again.

I believe the award was named for Cy Young because he had won the most games at a time when wins were the most important stat. I think today we know better. Jacob deGrom is currently 8-9. By past standards, no one would vote for him because there are several pitchers with 17, 16, 15 wins and winning records. Today, he is a serious candidate to win the Cy Young because we don't value wins, but value ERA, WHIP and adjusting them for things like park, team defense and level of competition.

[oldjudge]

All good points. I just think the "Johnson" award would lend itself to more interesting stories: "Here we are in the Astro locker room after Igor Gablowski has won the 2023 Walter Johnson award. Look, there's Igor raising his Johnson above his head. Now he is passing it around so his teammates can take a sip from it ..." admit it, it flows.

[barrysloate]

Question: Why Cy?
Answer: 511 career wins, 94 more than the next highest total.

+1

Cy Young died in 1955, and the award was first given out in 1956. Perhaps it was done more in his memory, despite the fact there were pitchers with arguably better stats.

[rats60]

Longevity means a lot more than it's getting credit for. I don't know who was best but it's hard to fault the all time win leader for having the award named after him for most wins in a season?

I would be all for giving it to the season wins leader, but now we give it to a guy who went 13-12 over guys who went- 21-7, 19-6 & 19-9.

[AGuinness]

Why does an award have to be named after the best player (as opposed to a great player, but perhaps not the best)?
In 1999, then Commissioner Selig introduced the Hank Aaron award, given to the best hitter in each league. Was Aaron the best hitter of all time? Maybe? There are certainly others who have a case.
Someone else mentioned that the Cy Young award came about a year after his death. It was introduced by then Commissioner Frick. I'm pretty certain that Selig thought very highly of Aaron, and I speculate that Frick probably felt similarly to Young, which is very likely why both awards were, in part, created.

[barrysloate]

Why does an award have to be named after the best player (as opposed to a great player, but perhaps not the best)?
In 1999, then Commissioner Selig introduced the Hank Aaron award, given to the best hitter in each league. Was Aaron the best hitter of all time? Maybe? There are certainly others who have a case.
Someone else mentioned that the Cy Young award came about a year after his death. It was introduced by then Commissioner Frick. I'm pretty certain that Selig thought very highly of Aaron, and I speculate that Frick probably felt similarly to Young, which is very likely why both awards were, in part, created.

There is also a name associated with the batting titles: It's the Tony Gwynn Award for the NL, and I believe the Rod Carew Award for the AL (I know they aren't commonly used). Both were exemplary hitters who won multiple batting titles, but nobody would confuse them with Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Rogers Hornsby, or Ted Williams. One is not obligated to pick the best player ever to name an award.

[AGuinness]

There is also a name associated with the batting titles: It's the Tony Gwynn Award for the NL, and I believe the Rod Carew Award for the AL (I know they aren't commonly used). Both were exemplary hitters who won multiple batting titles, but nobody would confuse them with Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Rogers Hornsby, or Ted Williams. One is not obligated to pick the best player ever to name an award.

True dat. Although I don't think that I'm going out on a limb to say that MLB couldn't have done any better picking the right player for the Roberto Clemente Award.

[barrysloate]

Agreed.

[robw1959]

Longevity mean A LOT. Young is the greatest pitcher of the era in my opinion, without question, and the award is RIGHTLY named after him.

The award was named after Cy Young in 1956 not for any of his achievements necessarily, but to commemorate his death the year before, in 1955.

[clydepepper]

There is also a name associated with the batting titles: It's the Tony Gwynn Award for the NL, and I believe the Rod Carew Award for the AL (I know they aren't commonly used). Both were exemplary hitters who won multiple batting titles, but nobody would confuse them with Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Rogers Hornsby, or Ted Williams. One is not obligated to pick the best player ever to name an award.


...and now, the contest begins for the Mario Mendoza Award...

[Sean]

...and now, the contest begins for the Mario Mendoza Award...

I'll nominate Gary Sanchez.

[PiratesWS1979]

a!!

[clydepepper]

...and the Adam Dunn award goes to...Yoan Moncada!!



How 'bout The NICE GUY Award -

to Chris Davis for being the LEAST OFFENSIVE player. :D


DAVIS Slash (slush really) .171 / .246 / .302 / .548

MONCADA Slash .231 / .309 / .397 / .707

[oldjudge]

I'll nominate Gary Sanchez.

He does lead the majors in something......passed balls. That in itself is an amazing achievement considering he missed over forty games with injuries. I wonder if he is in the lineup for his bat(if the season ended now he would set the record for the lowest Yankee batting average, min 300 AB, EVER) or his glove (see passed ball stat). What’s left—base running? He’s the slowest guy on the team.

[Leon]

I agree there is no obligation to name the Most Games Won in a Year Award. It is named what it is because it makes the most sense. :) And I like Johnson as a collectible, a lot. And he has the nicest grandson on Earth too!! All that and The Big Train could dress too. But it doesn't change the fact (most wins in a lifetime by a lot) on what is the best name for the most wins in a season. And to get back to topic, Johnson has seemed to be collected right above Matty but not by much. And different card issues can easily have Matty going for more.

There is also a name associated with the batting titles: It's the Tony Gwynn Award for the NL, and I believe the Rod Carew Award for the AL (I know they aren't commonly used). Both were exemplary hitters who won multiple batting titles, but nobody would confuse them with Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Rogers Hornsby, or Ted Williams. One is not obligated to pick the best player ever to name an award.

http://luckeycards.com/barrb.jpg

[Hankphenom]

http://luckeycards.com/barrb.jpg

I've always thought Walter and Matty were at the same level of collector's appeal, a notch below the big boys: Ruth, Cobb, Jackson, Robinson, who else? Mantle, maybe? Wagner, perhaps a bit because of the T-206 mystique? And that Barr-Farnman postcard is one of the WaJo greats, it was a special treat to see that set in person last year. Any idea what the p.p.c.c. (or o?) stands for? And is it Farnman or Farnham?

[Leon]

Hi Hank
It is actually a real photo used as a sample to order the postcards. It was a salesman's sample book, at auction, for ordering the postcards... or the photos, actually. This (regular sized but enlarged here) business card should help with the initials. It is on the back page.

I've always thought Walter and Matty were at the same level of collector's appeal, a notch below the big boys: Ruth, Cobb, Jackson, Robinson, who else? Mantle, maybe? Wagner, perhaps a bit because of the T-206 mystique? And that Barr-Farnman postcard is one of the WaJo greats, it was a special treat to see that set in person last year. Any idea what the p.p.c.c. (or o?) stands for? And is it Farnman or Farnham?

[Hankphenom]

Hi Hank
It is actually a real photo used as a sample to order the postcards. It was a salesman's sample book, at auction, for ordering the postcards... or the photos, actually. This (regular sized but enlarged here) business card should help with the initials. It is on the back page.

Incredible piece, including the business card. Have you ever had one of the postcards?

[clydepepper]

Wow!

It was enjoyable and very cool just to witness that spread of information!

OUTSTANDING!



.

[oldjudge]

I agree there is no obligation to name the Most Games Won in a Year Award. It is named what it is because it makes the most sense. :) And I like Johnson as a collectible, a lot. And he has the nicest grandson on Earth too!! All that and The Big Train could dress too. But it doesn't change the fact (most wins in a lifetime by a lot) on what is the best name for the most wins in a season. And to get back to topic, Johnson has seemed to be collected right above Matty but not by much. And different card issues can easily have Matty going for more.



http://luckeycards.com/barrb.jpg

Great point, except the Cy Young award is not for most wins in a season, it is for the best pitcher. The two are often not synonymous.

[Leon]

My mistake, it is best pitcher and not most wins. Blame Gabby, he told me what it was :). And the photo album was 2 bucks !! I paid a little more for it so probably overpaid as usual.

Great point, except the Cy Young award is not for most wins in a season, it is for the best pitcher. The two are often not synonymous.

[Hankphenom]

My mistake, it is best pitcher and not most wins. Blame Gabby, he told me what it was :). And the photo album was 2 bucks !! I paid a little more for it so probably overpaid as usual.

Boy, did you ever screw up on this one, Leon: you could have had 25 postcards instead for only a buck and a quarter and saved 75 cents. Even better, you could have ordered 25 WaJos and 25 team PCs for just fifty cents more and bought yourself a house a hundred years later! Instead, you're stuck with that stupid photo album! Call me next time, will you?

[Bicem]

Incredible piece, including the business card. Have you ever had one of the postcards?

Have never seen one, wonder if any were actually produced.

[Hankphenom]

Have never seen one, wonder if any were actually produced.

Maybe not. I saw some--perhaps a set--at the Library of Congress many years ago, but those could have been photos, too, the copyright exemplars.

[Exhibitman]

And lemme guess... you polish it daily? I know I would if I had that impressive piece of hardware.

I used to have someone else polish mine but she quit a few years ago, so now I am back to doing it myself. Between that and collecting cards I feel like a 13 year old again.

[NotVader]

In 2008, Eric Seidman wrote a very nice article entitled, "Why Cy ?" The Cy Young award started in 1956. So Seidman went back and statistically analyzed the pre-war greats to get a better fix on dominant pitchers. His results had Walter Johnson winning 8 Cy Young awards, Matty & Grove winning 7 each, G. Alexander nabbing 6 awards, and Cy Young hoisting 4 awards. Seidman thinks it should be called the "Christy Mathewson Award" and rightly so.


Walter Johnson is best ever based on stats back then while Nolan Ryan is the best modern pitcher.

Easy stuff, people.

CV

[bigtrain]

What amazes me most about Johnson is the 110 shutouts, a record that will never be broken. Second most impressive statistic of his is the 417 wins in spite of losing 63 games in which he allowed only one or two runs.

[ls7plus]

Disagree. When someone is overwhelming elected it means a lot. Out of 226 voters, with the chance to vote for anyone in baseball's history, Matty had 205 vote for him. That is significant. To put it in prospective, Ruth only got 10 more votes. A guy getting 20 or 16 votes vs. 10 is irrelevant. Matty getting more votes than WaJo doesn't mean he is better, it just means he is one of the greatest pitchers of all time.

The next year with the top 5 not taking votes away, Young barely made the cut. He only got 153 votes out of 201 and finished 3rd in voting, behind Lajoie and Speaker (He had finished 8th in 1936 behind Lajoie and Speaker) again.

I believe the award was named for Cy Young because he had won the most games at a time when wins were the most important stat. I think today we know better. Jacob deGrom is currently 8-9. By past standards, no one would vote for him because there are several pitchers with 17, 16, 15 wins and winning records. Today, he is a serious candidate to win the Cy Young because we don't value wins, but value ERA, WHIP and adjusting them for things like park, team defense and level of competition.

And here I thought that you didn't believe in the newer sabermetric analytical methods!

All good points, although having played fast pitch hardball in two summer leagues on quite good teams throughout my teens, in high school and in an over 30 fast-pitch hardball league in my early '40's comprised primarily of good former high school, college and professional players (3 former minor leaguers, and one former major leaguer, Jeff Hamilton of the Los Angeles Dodgers), I would argue that there is a talent to winning which a good starting pitcher must possess to be successful. It arises out of the fact that even the best of starters don't always have their best stuff (in fact, that is probably true the majority of the time), and they are going to have to get through several tight spots in virtually every game to secure the win. These primarily include multiple runners on base with less than two out, just by way of example. The "talent" I am speaking of is primarily psychological: the starter must remain calm and poised, and execute his pitches to successfully maneuver through the inning intact. Pure "stuff" frequently doesn't get it done. See Jeff Smardjia (sp?), former Cub and current Giant, who has great stuff, yet it never seems to translate to many wins. So I personally would not agree with Brian Kenny of "MLB Now" that the win is dead.

While it cannot be refuted that DeGrom has pitched extremely well, and he certainly does possess this "talent," as an old school fan, it troubles me that it has simply not translated into wins. Steve Carlton went 27 and 10 with a 1.98 ERA in 1972 with a Phillies team that only won 59 games total all season. Walter Johnson's Senators were rarely anywhere near the cream of the crop. Check out Koufax's Dodgers teams from '63, '65, and '66--subtract his won/lost record, and it will be seen that they were decent without him, but he primarily carried them to the World Series.

My point is that as long as it is the "Cy Young Award," the pitcher's performance who wins it should correlate to wins. DeGrom's hasn't. Yes, I know the follow-up argument: "but that hasn't been his fault." My response is that it is not a question of fault--the performance either translates to a significant number of additional wins for the player's team or it does not--fault is irrelevant. What Young did was WIN, WIN, and WIN, over a very long period of time. IMHO, Leon is absolutely correct when he states that the volume of success is meaningful. See the ongoing discussion on MLB Now re the volume of innings as a factor in winning versus not winning the award.

Just sayin',

Larry

[rats60]

And here I thought that you didn't believe in the newer sabermetric analytical methods!

All good points, although having played fast pitch hardball in two summer leagues on quite good teams throughout my teens, in high school and in an over 30 fast-pitch hardball league in my early '40's comprised primarily of good former high school, college and professional players (3 former minor leaguers, and one former major leaguer, Jeff Hamilton of the Los Angeles Dodgers), I would argue that there is a talent to winning which a good starting pitcher must possess to be successful. It arises out of the fact that even the best of starters don't always have their best stuff (in fact, that is probably true the majority of the time), and they are going to have to get through several tight spots in virtually every game to secure the win. These primarily include multiple runners on base with less than two out, just by way of example. The "talent" I am speaking of is primarily psychological: the starter must remain calm and poised, and execute his pitches to successfully maneuver through the inning intact. Pure "stuff" frequently doesn't get it done. See Jeff Smardjia (sp?), former Cub and current Giant, who has great stuff, yet it never seems to translate to many wins. So I personally would not agree with Brian Kenny of "MLB Now" that the win is dead.

While it cannot be refuted that DeGrom has pitched extremely well, and he certainly does possess this "talent," as an old school fan, it troubles me that it has simply not translated into wins. Steve Carlton went 27 and 10 with a 1.98 ERA in 1972 with a Phillies team that only won 59 games total all season. Walter Johnson's Senators were rarely anywhere near the cream of the crop. Check out Koufax's Dodgers teams from '63, '65, and '66--subtract his won/lost record, and it will be seen that they were decent without him, but he primarily carried them to the World Series.

My point is that as long as it is the "Cy Young Award," the pitcher's performance who wins it should correlate to wins. DeGrom's hasn't. Yes, I know the follow-up argument: "but that hasn't been his fault." My response is that it is not a question of fault--the performance either translates to a significant number of additional wins for the player's team or it does not--fault is irrelevant. What Young did was WIN, WIN, and WIN, over a very long period of time. IMHO, Leon is absolutely correct when he states that the volume of success is meaningful. See the ongoing discussion on MLB Now re the volume of innings as a factor in winning versus not winning the award.

Just sayin',

Larry

I agree with your points, but I would also add that run support is an important part of the equation. In 1968 Bob Gibson had a 1.12 ERA and still lost 9 games. It wasn't because he wasn't on a good team, but because they happened to not provide him with support in some games.

On 4/21 deGrom went 7 inn, 0 ER, ND
5/23 7 Inn, 0 ER, ND
5/28 7 inn, 1 ER, ND
6/2 7 inn, 1 ER, ND
7/6 8 inn, 1 ER, ND
7/11 8 inn, 0 ER, ND
8/28 8 inn, 1 ER, ND
9/3 6 inn, 1 ER, ND
At some point, you have to give a pitcher some credit for pitching great despite not getting a win. In today's game, I have to give a pitcher credit for 6-8 inning starts with holding the other team to 0 or 1 runs.

I don't hold to one stat or advanced metric, but I try to look at the whole picture. I also apply my experience playing and watching the game and I do value wins more than most. For most of the season, I have had Scherzer ahead of deGrom, but looking at the whole season, I believe deGrom is the best pitcher in the NL this season. Felix Hernandez won a Cy Young at 13-12 and I believe deGrom will win one at 10-9.

As far as Young, wins is a factor, but what about losses, earned runs and hits? I value peak as well as career. In my opinion he is 3rd behind WaJo and Matty, so I do give him a lot of credit for his longevity. I just give 2 guys more because of a combination of longevity and peak.

[barrysloate]

Didn't Johnson win 38 games by the score of 1-0?

[Hankphenom]

Didn't Johnson win 38 games by the score of 1-0?

Yes. He won 38 and lost 26 1-0 games. Alexander is next with 17 1-0 wins.