Quote:
Originally Posted by ls7plus
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.