MLB Award Winners for 2014

[the 'stache]

Chris Sale for Cy Young?

Hmm, that's really interesting. To be honest, Alex, I haven't looked at Sale's numbers in quite a while. Wow, what an outstanding season he's had. He's had a pretty spectacular start to his career, too. That reminds me, I need to buy his Bowman Chrome prospect auto before it starts to skyrocket like Kershaw's.

Question for you guys. I know that when the MVP candidates are being considered for the award, their team's making or not making the playoffs has a huge impact on whether or not they receive serious consideration for the award. But I don't know, historically speaking, if the same holds true for Cy Young voting.

Sale's White Sox finished at 73-89, so they were not in the playoff chase. But from a numbers standpoint, he's right there with King Felix.

Felix Hernandez: 15-6 (.714), 2.14 ERA, 248 K, 46 BB, 0.915 WHIP, 6.5 H/9 IP, 9.5 K/9 IP, 1.8 BB/9 IP, 5.39 K:BB, 2.56 FIP, 170 ERA+
Chris Sale: 12-4 (.750), 2.17 ERA, 208 K, 39 BB, 0.966 WHIP, 6.7 H/9 IP, 10.8 K/9 IP, 2.0 BB/9 IP, 5.33 K:BB, 2.57 FIP, 178 ERA+

Their numbers are remarkably close. They have nearly identical ERA, hits per 9 IP, walks per 9 IP, and FIP. Hernandez has more strikeouts, but Sale's strikeout rate per 9 IP is higher by more than a strikeout. But Hernandez has a very slight edge in both hits and walks per 9 IP, so his WHIP is better, 0.915 vs 0.966.

Hernandez has thrown 62 more innings. How does that weigh? You look at their metrics, which are both incredibly close-does a voter then think to himself "well, Hernandez was able to maintain that excellence while basically pitching 7 more games worth of innings.

I don't know. Seattle didn't make the playoffs, either, but they just missed, where the White Sox weren't close.

I think Hernandez wins the Cy Young, but Sale is right there with him. That could be the most interesting vote out of the four.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

...
Question for you guys. I know that when the MVP candidates are being considered for the award, their team's making or not making the playoffs has a huge impact on whether or not they receive serious consideration for the award. But I don't know, historically speaking, if the same holds true for Cy Young voting.

Historically, no.

[howard38]

Question for you guys. I know that when the MVP candidates are being considered for the award, their team's making or not making the playoffs has a huge impact on whether or not they receive serious consideration for the award. But I don't know, historically speaking, if the same holds true for Cy Young voting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When first created the Cy Young award plaque noted that it was awarded to the "most valuable" pitcher and for many years almost every winner was on a post-season team or at least fairly close. Some time in the 1980s the wording was changed to "outstanding" pitcher. Pitchers on post-season teams still won the bulk of the awards but it's not unusual now to see guys on also-rans like Greinke and Hernandez win it.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by howard38

Some time in the 1980s the wording was changed to "outstanding" pitcher. Pitchers on post-season teams still won the bulk of the awards but it's not unusual now to see guys on also-rans like Greinke and Hernandez win it.

Possibly because they finally realized there already is a 'most valuable player' award.

Also, the team's performance (run production) is going to more adversely affect a pitcher's statistics, than it will a potential MVP field player. So basically, it's going to be difficult to give the Cy Young to a playoff pitcher who has worse stats than a guy on a non-playoff team - not only will the statistical differences be glaring, but also the fact that the poorer pitcher had better run production behind him, yet still had worse stats.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Possibly because they finally realized there already is a 'most valuable player' award.

Also, the team's performance (run production) is going to more adversely affect a pitcher's statistics, than it will a potential MVP field player. So basically, it's going to be difficult to give the Cy Young to a playoff pitcher who has worse stats than a guy on a non-playoff team - not only will the statistical differences be glaring, but also the fact that the poorer pitcher had better run production behind him, yet still had worse stats.

I agree with that. In 1972 for example there was no way any pennant winning pitcher was going to win the CY Young award over Steve Carlton. I think being on a winner was used more as a "tie-breaker" like Early Wynn over Sam Jones in 1959 or Vern Law over Ernie Broglio in 1960. With todays advanced stats it's harder to justify denying the award to a pitcher on a poor team simply because he had less run support to work with.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by howard38

I agree with that. In 1972 for example there was no way any pennant winning pitcher was going to win the CY Young award over Steve Carlton. I think being on a winner was used more as a "tie-breaker" like Early Wynn over Sam Jones in 1959 or Vern Law over Ernie Broglio in 1960. With todays advanced stats it's harder to justify denying the award to a pitcher on a poor team simply because he had less run support to work with.

Win/Loss is one of he flukiest things ever. But sometimes, you can get a great guage on just how good a guy was when he's still raking in the wins for a bad team. You can also get a real feel for how well he's pitching in tight games..

I think that's one of the reasons that Cliff Lee's 2008 season was so special. Dude went 22-3 with a 2.54 era for a team that only won 81 games. Although, I will admit that that teams issue really wasn't offense, but rather a total lack of pitching beyond cliff.. One of the things with teams that aren't contending though, is that a pitcher may tend to lose focus or not care as much down the stretch, when the games are meaningless.

On the flipside, look at Kevin Millwood's 2005 season.. Led the AL in era at 2.86, but somehow only had a 9-11 record... Now just looking at that, you would naturally assume that he was just pitching for a terrible team... And you would have assumed wrong... That was for a 93 win team.. Meanwhile on that same team, Scott Elarton goes 11-9 with a 4.61 era. and Cliff Lee goes 18-5 with a 3.79 era(almost a run worse than Millwood).

[howard38]

Originally Posted by novakjr

Win/Loss is one of he flukiest things ever. But sometimes, you can get a great guage on just how good a guy was when he's still raking in the wins for a bad team. You can also get a real feel for how well he's pitching in tight games..

I think that's one of the reasons that Cliff Lee's 2008 season was so special. Dude went 22-3 with a 2.54 era for a team that only won 81 games. Although, I will admit that that teams issue really wasn't offense, but rather a total lack of pitching beyond cliff.. One of the things with teams that aren't contending though, is that a pitcher may tend to lose focus or not care as much down the stretch, when the games are meaningless.

On the flipside, look at Kevin Millwood's 2005 season.. Led the AL in era at 2.86, but somehow only had a 9-11 record... Now just looking at that, you would naturally assume that he was just pitching for a terrible team... And you would have assumed wrong... That was for a 93 win team.. Meanwhile on that same team, Scott Elarton goes 11-9 with a 4.61 era. and Cliff Lee goes 18-5 with a 3.79 era(almost a run worse than Millwood).

Millwood is a great example of how overrated wins are. He went to Texas the next year and won sixteen games. He didn't suddenly become a better pitcher, in fact his ERA ballooned to 4.52 but he was on a slightly better hitting team and had much better luck.