Should MLB replace Cy Young awards with the "C. Mathewson" and "W. Johnson" awards?

[bravos4evr]

It should stay how it is, I think you'd be surprised by how many players know who the old timer are.

But, if you wanted to be a stickler and name the awards after the greatest players you'd have to go as follows:

AL MVP- Babe Ruth Award

NL MVP- Wille Mays Award

AL pitcher- Walter Johnson Award

NL Pitcher- Greg Maddux Award


AL Best Hitter- Ted Williams Award

NL Best Hitter- Rogers Hornsby Award


Gold Gloves by position:

C- Johnny Bench

1b- Keith Hernandez

2b-Bill Mazeroski

SS- Ozzie Smith (for now)

3b- Brooks Robinson

LF-Yastrzremski

CF- Andruw Jones

RF- Roberto Clemente

P- Jim Kaat Award (since Maddux already gets the nl pitching)

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

It should stay how it is, I think you'd be surprised by how many players know who the old timer are.

But, if you wanted to be a stickler and name the awards after the greatest players you'd have to go as follows:

AL MVP- Babe Ruth Award

NL MVP- Wille Mays Award

AL pitcher- Walter Johnson Award

NL Pitcher- Greg Maddux Award


AL Best Hitter- Ted Williams Award

NL Best Hitter- Rogers Hornsby Award


Gold Gloves by position:

C- Johnny Bench

1b- Keith Hernandez

2b-Bill Mazeroski

SS- Ozzie Smith (for now)

3b- Brooks Robinson

LF-Yastrzremski

CF- Andruw Jones

RF- Roberto Clemente

P- Jim Kaat Award (since Maddux already gets the nl pitching)

Right on with Hornsby as best NL hitter. He averaged .401 over 5 consecutive seasons and .399 over 6 years...that's amazing! Have to disagree with NL pitcher...Mathewson, Alexander and Seaver better than Maddux with Seaver & Alexander both posting better WAR & JAWS figures than Maddux. Also, one of the stats that gets lost with post 90's to present day pitchers is the fact that they simply didnt or don't complete games. The toughest outs for a pitcher is the final 3-6 outs and starters don't have to get them anymore. Not their fault of course because that's the way the game is played, but it's hard to say a 7/8 inning pitcher is better than a hurler who completed 50%+ of his games during his prime.

Regards,
Joe T.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Right on with Hornsby as best NL hitter. He averaged .401 over 5 consecutive seasons and .399 over 6 years...that's amazing! Have to disagree with NL pitcher...Mathewson, Alexander and Seaver better than Maddux with Seaver & Alexander both posting better WAR & JAWS figures than Maddux. Also, one of the stats that gets lost with post 90's to present day pitchers is the fact that they simply didnt or don't complete games. The toughest outs for a pitcher is the final 3-6 outs and starters don't have to get them anymore. Not their fault of course because that's the way the game is played, but it's hard to say a 7/8 inning pitcher is better than a hurler who completed 50%+ of his games during his prime.

Regards,
Joe T.

Mddux has higher WAR than all but Clemens (cough cough roids) Cy Young and Walter Johnson (and only 1 behind WJ in 906 less innings) I think when you consider he did most of his pitching in the steroid era AND didn't possess a 95+ fastball, a very good argument could be made that Maddux is the greatest pitcher of all time.

I am not a fan of baseball reference as I think most of their proprietary stuff is garbage, I use fangraphs


http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...ter=&players=0

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Mddux has higher WAR than all but Clemens (cough cough roids) Cy Young and Walter Johnson (and only 1 behind WJ in 906 less innings) I think when you consider he did most of his pitching in the steroid era AND didn't possess a 95+ fastball, a very good argument could be made that Maddux is the greatest pitcher of all time.

I am not a fan of baseball reference as I think most of their proprietary stuff is garbage, I use fangraphs


http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...ter=&players=0

Not. You better check your data on baseball reference. Maddux is ranked 8th all-time in WAR behind: 1) Young, 2) Johnson, 3) Clemens, 4) Alexander, 5) Nichols, 6) Grove, 7) Seaver. Also, interestingly enough and as I stated in my previous post, Seaver averaged approx. 7.40 innings per start over his 20-year career while Maddux averaged only 6.77 innings per start. That is a significant 2/3 of an inning disparity per start and a loud statement of how Seaver pitched much deeper into games.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Mddux has higher WAR than all but Clemens (cough cough roids) Cy Young and Walter Johnson (and only 1 behind WJ in 906 less innings) I think when you consider he did most of his pitching in the steroid era AND didn't possess a 95+ fastball, a very good argument could be made that Maddux is the greatest pitcher of all time.

I am not a fan of baseball reference as I think most of their proprietary stuff is garbage, I use fangraphs


http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...ter=&players=0

Here you go...Rank, Pitcher, MLB Years, WAR#. Taken from BaseballReference.com

1. Cy Young+ (22) 170.3
2. Walter Johnson+ (21) 152.3
3. Roger Clemens (24) 139.4
4. Pete Alexander+ (20) 117.0
5. Kid Nichols+ (15) 116.6
6. Lefty Grove+ (17) 109.9
7. Tom Seaver+ (20) 106.3
8. Greg Maddux+ (23) 104.6

[steve B]

I haven't studied it in detail, but one of the things I wonder about WAR is how they account for some of the slightly connected stuff. Those things make it slightly similar to wins as far as pitchers go.

For instance, Wins relies on how good the team is, and who the pitcher pitches against. I believe one reason fewer pitchers reach 20 wins is because the rotations are set up so the better guys get matched up against the other teams better pitchers. (I'd have to really get into it to see if this happens more now with larger rotations and less travel time, or if it happened more back then with smaller rotations and more travel time.)

Like wise for WAR, the players who are the second tier players, very good but not great might have that stat dragged down by being up against someone "special" Realistically a pitchers chances against Johnson, Young, or any of those others when they were in their prime weren't all that good.

Of course, WAR might be set up to account for that, and if it is then I'll have to rethink things.

Al things considered, I'd still think Young did stuff that's far beyond what almost anyone else has. Not to mention the amazing durability in an era when pitchers were used as much as possible.

Steve B

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Here you go...Rank, Pitcher, MLB Years, WAR#. Taken from BaseballReference.com

1. Cy Young+ (22) 170.3
2. Walter Johnson+ (21) 152.3
3. Roger Clemens (24) 139.4
4. Pete Alexander+ (20) 117.0
5. Kid Nichols+ (15) 116.6
6. Lefty Grove+ (17) 109.9
7. Tom Seaver+ (20) 106.3
8. Greg Maddux+ (23) 104.6

I provided a link in my reply above to Fangraphs (which has Maddux 4th) their proprietary WAR is much better and used more often by the saber community than baseball reference.(which to be honest, is considered a little dated)

1- Clemens- 133.7
2- Young- 131.5
3- W. Johnson- 117.1
4- Maddux- 116.7



http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...ter=&players=0

[bravos4evr]

and, to be fair, using RA9-WAR Maddux is 6th (and he and Clemens are the only live ball era pitchers in the top 6, which means a good bit and WAR per game rank higher than all the rest)

and using RAR he is 3rd behind only Young and Clemens

I haven't studied it in detail, but one of the things I wonder about WAR is how they account for some of the slightly connected stuff. Those things make it slightly similar to wins as far as pitchers go.

For instance, Wins relies on how good the team is, and who the pitcher pitches against. I believe one reason fewer pitchers reach 20 wins is because the rotations are set up so the better guys get matched up against the other teams better pitchers. (I'd have to really get into it to see if this happens more now with larger rotations and less travel time, or if it happened more back then with smaller rotations and more travel time.)

Like wise for WAR, the players who are the second tier players, very good but not great might have that stat dragged down by being up against someone "special" Realistically a pitchers chances against Johnson, Young, or any of those others when they were in their prime weren't all that good.

Of course, WAR might be set up to account for that, and if it is then I'll have to rethink things.

Al things considered, I'd still think Young did stuff that's far beyond what almost anyone else has. Not to mention the amazing durability in an era when pitchers were used as much as possible.

WAR does not consider pitcher wins at all, it looks at the individual pitcher's on field performance relative to a statistical "replacement player" so who a pitcher faces doesn't matter. If he goes 6 innings, K's 9, walks 0, gives up no home runs, one unearned run and loses 1-0 he will be given as much credit as if he went 6, K'd 9, walked 0 gave up no home runs and won 19-0 as he is only credited with the things he has control of (very loose comparison but you get my drift)

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

and, to be fair, using RA9-WAR Maddux is 6th (and he and Clemens are the only live ball era pitchers in the top 6, which means a good bit and WAR per game rank higher than all the rest)

and using RAR he is 3rd behind only Young and Clemens





WAR does not consider pitcher wins at all, it looks at the individual pitcher's on field performance relative to a statistical "replacement player" so who a pitcher faces doesn't matter. If he goes 6 innings, K's 9, walks 0, gives up no home runs, one unearned run and loses 1-0 he will be given as much credit as if he went 6, K'd 9, walked 0 gave up no home runs and won 19-0 as he is only credited with the things he has control of (very loose comparison but you get my drift)

You should also check out JAWS which weights WAR for both career & a pitchers 7 best seasons (for peak value purposes) at 50% each. Very interesting...

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I provided a link in my reply above to Fangraphs (which has Maddux 4th) their proprietary WAR is much better and used more often by the saber community than baseball reference.(which to be honest, is considered a little dated)

1- Clemens- 133.7
2- Young- 131.5
3- W. Johnson- 117.1
4- Maddux- 116.7



http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...ter=&players=0

You are kidding....right? Fangraphs has Perry, Blyleven and Ryan ranked ahead of Seaver, Grove, & Mathewson (not to mention Pedro Martinez)....INNEDIATELY placing its rankings as a complete Joke! And this is the ranking system you swear by? Those 3 pitchers aren't in the same league as the latter 4...LOL...

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

You are kidding....right? Fangraphs has Perry, Blyleven and Ryan ranked ahead of Seaver, Grove, & Mathewson (not to mention Pedro Martinez)....INNEDIATELY placing its rankings as a complete Joke! And this is the ranking system you swear by? Those 3 pitchers aren't in the same league as the latter 4...LOL...

sigh...... WAR is cumulative, it is not a score. so a borderline HOF'er who threw for 24 years like Perry will have a higher score than Mathewson , seriously go lookat the innings counts and it will show both who A- had the better peak and B- who had the slowest decline. it depends on the rater on which of those two they value.


and why the argument against Nolan Ryan? 9.55 K rate when avg was under 6, a career ERA of 3.19 and an FIP of 2.98 nearly 5400 innings pitched. that's pretty damn elite stuff.

look at this table showing most innings pitched and see how it impacts total WAR score

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...ers=0&sort=8,d

and yes fangraphs is simply better. It uses park and league adjusted stats instead of treating a sub 2 ERA in the deadball era as equal to one in the steroid era.