The case for Verlander... AL Cy Young

[MilkSpiller22]

And it CAN mean that... but when you go 8 innings with one or no runs allowed and lose on multiple occasions....that's on the hitters.

Why?? If you know your team cant score 2 runs, then you better do better than that... Its the winning pitcher that sets the game flow...

 

[TKOSpikes]

that wasn't my argument... I am a huge QS and QS% fan, as I think it is a top 5 of the most important stat for a SP...

But my argument was more about playing with the lead it is irrelevant how many runs your team scored... For example, if the pitcher let up 4 runs it cant be a QS, but if you got the win, doesn't that mean that you still pitched well enough to get the win?? Maybe this measures pressure, idk, but I like to factor it in somehow...

Now of course, it is a low factor... But I think it is a bigger factor than run support, since we have other stats that measure how well a pitcher pitched... and we have QS and QS% to see game to game consistency...

If you take QS,QS%, ERA, WHIP, etc... then what exactly does run support tell you??

It tells you that wins are extremely lucky at times. And 22-9 would be no different in his case than his 16-9. Meaning HE wouldn't have had to do anything different. He left the game after 7 innings pitched with a lead that was blown a ton. If thos leads are bigger, he has more wins, if the pen doesn't blow it on him, that's more wins. We're not talking big run support here. One more run in his nine losses would have resulted in four less losses.

And you can't use the "well don't hand it off to the bullpen" because he pitched a ton of innings and rarely left before 21 outs.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

It tells you that wins are extremely lucky at times. And 22-9 would be no different in his case than his 16-9. Meaning HE wouldn't have had to do anything different. He left the game after 7 innings pitched with a lead that was blown a ton. If thos leads are bigger, he has more wins, if the pen doesn't blow it on him, that's more wins. We're not talking big run support here. One more run in his nine losses would have resulted in four less losses.

And you can't use the "well don't hand it off to the bullpen" because he pitched a ton of innings and rarely left before 21 outs.

A better stat than wins/losses would be LEFT GAME with the lead-tie/left the game losing. that would measure the same thing that I use W/L...

What I want to measure is the leverage he costs the rest of the team, whether the pitcher was the BETTER pitcher for THAT individual game, and some other minor things...

again, it is not a major factor, but I think it is a factor none the less... And to me, run support is not needed, since it is already built in...

For example, if you have a high percentage of games where you left the game with a win/tie, and you have a good QS% then clearly your RS game to game is pretty good...

 

[broncosmitty]

I agree that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, however. . .

I think I've posted the formula that Rob Neyer and Bill James came up with to predict CY winners. It accurately predicts the CY winners about 80% of the time. The formula includes a factor for the pitcher's team winning their division, so those to found a statistical link.

Imo, there is no formula to how a group of writers will vote.

But I'm of the mind that baseball is an art, not a science, so the formulas annoy the fuck out of me anyway.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Imo, there is no formula to how a group of writers will vote.

But I'm of the mind that baseball is an art, not a science, so the formulas annoy the fuck out of me anyway.

Yeah, that's all well and good, but they developed the formula based on past winners' stats and found a statistically relevant correlation between a pitcher's team winning the division and the CY award.

Of course there is no formula that will know how a group of voters will vote, but imo, a formula that gets it right 80% of the time is worth thinking about.

You disagree. That's fine. Moving on.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Yeah, that's all well and good, but they developed the formula based on past winners' stats and found a statistically relevant correlation between a pitcher's team winning the division and the CY award.

Of course there is no formula that will know how a group of voters will vote, but imo, a formula that gets it right 80% of the time is worth thinking about.

You disagree. That's fine. Moving on.

Is the formula for who they think the voters will vote for, or for who they think should win?? Would be very strange if it is intended to figure out who the voters would vote for...

 

[Wamu]

Well shiiiiiit I'm a bit disappointed that dougplayer didn't start this thread.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Is the formula for who they think the voters will vote for, or for who they think should win?? Would be very strange if it is intended to figure out who the voters would vote for...

The formula tries to identify who will win the CY Awards based on pitchers' actual stats.

It is not who Rob Neyer and Bill James think should win.

I don't find that strange.

Here's the formula, if you're interested:

Cy Young Points (CYP) = ((5*IP/9)-ER) + (SO/12) + (SV*2.5) + Shutouts + ((W*6)-(L*2)) + VB (see below).

• VB: Victory Bonus is a 12-point bonus awarded for leading your team to the division championship

 

[MilkSpiller22]

The formula tries to identify who will win the CY Awards based on pitchers' actual stats.

It is not who Rob Neyer and Bill James think should win.

I don't find that strange.

Here's the formula, if you're interested:

Cy Young Points (CYP) = ((5*IP/9)-ER) + (SO/12) + (SV*2.5) + Shutouts + ((W*6)-(L*2)) + VB (see below).

• VB: Victory Bonus is a 12-point bonus awarded for leading your team to the division championship

Very interesting formula... surprised that BF or WHIP is not factored at all... also surprised that division winner is a larger factor than SOs...

I am sure, if they tried, they could even make a more accurate formula...

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Very interesting formula...

That's what I thought.

surprised that BF or WHIP is not factored at all...

I'm not. They aren't trying to say who should win. They're trying to identify who the voters will choose, so they took past winners, analyzed their stats and found what they considered to be statistically significant correlations between these stats and getting votes.

also surprised that division winner is a larger factor than SOs...

I'm surprised you interpret the formula that way.

I am sure, if they tried, they could even make a more accurate formula...

Maybe they could. I'd assume Nate Silver definitely could. Meantime, 80% accuracy is pretty damn good.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

That's what I thought.



I'm not. They aren't trying to say who should win. They're trying to identify who the voters will choose, so they took past winners, analyzed their stats and found what they considered to be statistically significant correlations between these stats and getting votes.



I'm surprised you interpret the formula that way.



Maybe they could. I'd assume Nate Silver definitely could. Meantime, 80% accuracy is pretty damn good.

Not really...


the formula is strongly based on Wins... so basically they are stating the pitcher with the Most wins will win the CY...

I don't even have to do the math to figure out the formula is going to say Porcello will win this year...

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Not really...


the formula is strongly based on Wins... so basically they are stating the pitcher with the Most wins will win the CY...

No, that's not basically what they're stating at all.

I'm done here.

 

[broncosmitty]

I value WHIP over ERA.

One real bad outing can throw an ERA off from an entire year. (To some degree.). But nobody gets the chance to get knocked around long enough in one game to do it to WHIP. (To a lesser degree.)

But I also value QS. Partly on account of milk's input over the years. I don't really value the number of shutouts. But I value innings like a muhfuggah.

Do those two have a list of the 20% that fall outside of their formulas findings?

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Do those two have a list of the 20% that fall outside of their formulas findings?

2016 MLB Baseball Cy Young Predictor - Major League Baseball - ESPN

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

I value WHIP over ERA.

One real bad outing can throw an ERA off from an entire year. (To some degree.). But nobody gets the chance to get knocked around long enough in one game to do it to WHIP. (To a lesser degree.)

But I also value QS. Partly on account of milk's input over the years. I don't really value the number of shutouts. But I value innings like a muhfuggah.

Do those two have a list of the 20% that fall outside of their formulas findings?

I agree with most of that.

I'm not saying that the stats in the formula are the ones you should consider, or that it's the be-all-end-all of CY selection. I just put it out there because a couple of pretty brilliant baseball minds found a correlation between that formula and who wins the awards. I think it's interesting. I wouldn't bet my middle testicle that Porcello is going to win this year. It's just something to think about. I'm sure it could be more accurate, but I'm not sure that you or I or anyone else on here would do consistently better than 80% over a couple decades or so.

FWIW, I took a look at Kershaw's 2013 CY season and what percentage of the "CY Points" came from the various stats in the formula. Here's what it looks like:

Total CY Points: 194.4pts / 100.0%
IP and ER: 83.1pts / 42.7%
Ks: 19.3pts / 9.9%
SV: 0.0pts / 0.0%
SHO: 2.0pts / 1.0%
Record: 78.0pts / 40.1%
Division Win: 12.0pts / 6.2%

 

[broncosmitty]

2016 MLB Baseball Cy Young Predictor - Major League Baseball - ESPN

Sam Dyson had better not finish ahead of Miller.

Atleast he shouldn't imo.

I don't like Happ that high either. Or Hamels.

I do like that Price is Top Ten though.

 

[broncosmitty]

I agree with most of that.

I'm not saying that the stats in the formula are the ones you should consider, or that it's the be-all-end-all of CY selection. I just put it out there because a couple of pretty brilliant baseball minds found a correlation between that formula and who wins the awards. I think it's interesting. I wouldn't bet my middle testicle that Porcello is going to win this year. It's just something to think about. I'm sure it could be more accurate, but I'm not sure that you or I or anyone else on here would do consistently better than 80% over a couple decades or so.

FWIW, I took a look at Kershaw's 2013 CY season and what percentage of the "CY Points" came from the various stats in the formula. Here's what it looks like:

Total CY Points: 194.4pts / 100.0%
IP and ER: 83.1pts / 42.7%
Ks: 19.3pts / 9.9%
SV: 0.0pts / 0.0%
SHO: 2.0pts / 1.0%
Record: 78.0pts / 40.1%
Division Win: 12.0pts / 6.2%

If it's right 80% of the time, I guess there's something to it. Maybe.

You could put a Run Differential Spreadsheet in front of me along with that formula and I still wouldn't like the simplified quantification.

I'm firmly in the Baseball Climate Change Denial camp. But you know that as well as anyone here. Lol

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Sam Dyson had better not finish ahead of Miller.

Atleast he shouldn't imo.

I don't like Happ that high either. Or Hamels.

I do like that Price is Top Ten though.

I'm with you on Happ. I also think Verlander should be at the top.

Beyond that, I don't care too much. Typically, the 3rd place finisher isn't much closer to actually winning the CY than you or I are.

 

[broncosmitty]

I'm with you on Happ. I also think Verlander should be at the top.

Beyond that, I don't care too much. Typically, the 3rd place finisher isn't much closer to actually winning the CY than you or I are.

In the few weeks since the Tigers have played, I've thought about a lot of missed opportunities for JV.

So many times his teammates didn't hold up their end of the bargain.

Porcello had a lot of the opposite. Can't hold it against him if he does get it. Might hold it against Britton.

Would you have Miller in the Top Ten? Id put him 7-8, somewhere in there.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

No, that's not basically what they're stating at all.

I'm done here.

Actually it does... Of course within reason... But look at how Porcello's 22 wins gives him a 30 point lead from the next AL candidate, and notice that the NL leader is Scherzer and he too is lower than Porcello...

While Scherzer, Kluber, Verlander and others had More innings, better ERA, and significantly more strike outs...