Mathewson Vs. Johnson

[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]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

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?

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

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.

[Throttlesteer]

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

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

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.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

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.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

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]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

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]

Originally Posted by rats60

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.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Leon

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.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by rats60

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]

Originally Posted by markf31

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

[rats60]

Originally Posted by markf31

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.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by rats60

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

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

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.

[NotVader]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

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.