|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
"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. Last edited by nat; 09-20-2018 at 09:02 AM. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Check out my YouTube Videos highlighting VINTAGE CARDS https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbE..._as=subscriber ebay store: kryvintage-->https://www.ebay.com/sch/kryvintage/...p2047675.l2562 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Love 'em both
Gotta get a picture on this thread
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
and Walter
And a Walter Johnson
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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 Last edited by ls7plus; 09-29-2018 at 11:25 PM. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. Last edited by rats60; 09-30-2018 at 07:32 AM. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Didn't Johnson win 38 games by the score of 1-0?
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Yes. He won 38 and lost 26 1-0 games. Alexander is next with 17 1-0 wins.
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FT: Mathewson and Johnson | cammb | T206 cards B/S/T | 0 | 08-16-2016 05:43 AM |
WTB Low grade Mathewson or Johnson | Bruinsfan94 | T206 cards B/S/T | 3 | 04-19-2016 11:29 AM |
T206 Mathewson & Johnson | yanks12025 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 10 | 06-19-2013 05:03 PM |
Notebook - Mathewson & Johnson | Vintageismygame | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, W, etc..) B/S/T | 4 | 02-23-2013 06:09 PM |
The big three: Mathewson, Johnson, Young | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 39 | 11-30-2002 08:14 AM |