Kershaw should be the leading NL Cy Young candidate

[MilkSpiller22]

Did you read the article, Milk? Explains the reasoning pretty clearly...



I can understand if you would rather give the award to Greinke or Arrieta, but Kershaw is just as deserving as well.

But BABIP is just another stat that helps out the strike out artist... You do realize that a pitcher with more strike outs will have a high BABIP... Not to mention HRs don't count in BABIP, so kershaw who allowed more HRs and struck out more than both Arrieta and Greinke will naturally have a better BABIP as long as their WHIPs are close...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

FIP and xFIP are just more stats that help out the K artist... Seriously, it seems like all these advanced stats only focus on Ks... OK we get it 301 Ks is nasty... He is an amazing Pitcher... But he had a worse WHIP, a worse ERA had less wins, had lower QS% than Arietta and Greinke...

 

[calsnowskier]

IMHO, advanced stats are predictive, not productive.

FIP, BABIP, MPH off the bat, etc are great when trying to decide who you want on your team going into next year. But when looking at who had a better year in the past, look more at traditional stats.

ERA, WHIP, Ks, BB, IP, QS/PQS are MUCH better performance stats than predictors. CY and MVP should be based on performance stats.

Looking at these stats, all three pitchers are well deserving of the CY this year. You can argue FOR one of them, but you cant really argue for any OVER another.

Again, IMHO...

 

[Villain]

advanced stats suck in that they make you forgot what is really important!!! we are not talking about who is the best pitcher, we are talking about which pitcher had the best season... If a pitcher has a better ERA and WHIP, tell me, why does strike outs matter??

Drop the WHIP thing, they all have basically the exact same WHIP.

And ERA is not completely in the picther's control. ERA can be a very misleading stat. It's useful at a glance when you want to know about a guy without digging deep. This is the Cy Young. We dig deep for this one.

 

[Villain]

IMHO, advanced stats are predictive, not productive.

FIP, BABIP, MPH off the bat, etc are great when trying to decide who you want on your team going into next year. But when looking at who had a better year in the past, look more at traditional stats.

They (the ones you listed) are not predictive. They are based solely on performance. They tell you what happened. They don't tell you what will happen. They just boil down the production into finer categories.

 

[Villain]

FIP and xFIP are just more stats that help out the K artist... Seriously, it seems like all these advanced stats only focus on Ks... OK we get it 301 Ks is nasty... He is an amazing Pitcher... But he had a worse WHIP, a worse ERA had less wins, had lower QS% than Arietta and Greinke...

You're into wins now?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

You're into wins now?

View attachment 37372

well, always have been into wins as a stat... It is one of my least important stats... But I do look at it... Really brought it up more because it is a major stat for the voters...

But I do think it has merit of a stat... I do think there is a difference between a pitcher who wins more games with similar numbers, and it is not always just about run support...

 

[Villain]

well, always have been into wins as a stat... It is one of my least important stats... But I do look at it... Really brought it up more because it is a major stat for the voters...

But I do think it has merit of a stat... I do think there is a difference between a pitcher who wins more games with similar numbers, and it is not always just about run support...

Pitcher wins are the most laughably stupid stat that they literally mean nothing to me except that they get me 10 points in fantasy baseball.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Drop the WHIP thing, they all have basically the exact same WHIP.

And ERA is not completely in the picther's control. ERA can be a very misleading stat. It's useful at a glance when you want to know about a guy without digging deep. This is the Cy Young. We dig deep for this one.

Why drop the WHIP?? We are talking about CY here, it might be close but someone does have better... At least I am bringing up more stats than JUST EVERY SINGLE ONE THAT INCLUDES STRIKE OUTS...

 

[Villain]

Why drop the WHIP?? We are talking about CY here, it might be close but someone does have better... At least I am bringing up more stats than JUST EVERY SINGLE ONE THAT INCLUDES STRIKE OUTS...

THEY HAVE THE SAME WHIP

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Pitcher wins are the most laughably stupid stat that they literally mean nothing to me except that they get me 10 points in fantasy baseball.

Obviously they are not the best statistic... But do you ever watch a game and say this pitcher has done JUST enough to win... or he is up 2-0 and then gives up a 3 run Bomb in the 7th to find a way to lsoe?? do you always just say, well the outcome does not show how the pitcher did??

 

[Villain]

Obviously they are not the best statistic... But do you ever watch a game and say this pitcher has done JUST enough to win... or he is up 2-0 and then gives up a 3 run Bomb in the 7th to find a way to lsoe?? do you always just say, well the outcome does not show how the pitcher did??

Pitchers can give up 5 runs and get the win. Pitchers can give up a lead and get the win. Closers can blow a save and get the win. Pitchers can combine to throw 9 innings and zero hits and still get a loss.

Dodgers held hitless but still get best of Angels

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Pitchers can give up 5 runs and get the win. Pitchers can give up a lead and get the win. Closers can blow a save and get the win. Pitchers can combine to throw 9 innings and zero hits and still get a loss.

Dodgers held hitless but still get best of Angels

I understand that, and that's why wins will never be a great statistic anymore, but don't just talk about the bad wins and bad losses... Don't you think it is a decent intangible stat to show how well a pitcher does when it matters?? Talk about clutch stats, I don't think there is anything better and easier to look at than Wins...

 

[Villain]

I understand that, and that's why wins will never be a great statistic anymore, but don't just talk about the bad wins and bad losses... Don't you think it is a decent intangible stat to show how well a pitcher does when it matters?? Talk about clutch stats, I don't think there is anything better and easier to look at than Wins...

No. Also, "intangible stat" is an oxymoron.

 

[calsnowskier]

They (the ones you listed) are not predictive. They are based solely on performance. They tell you what happened. They don't tell you what will happen. They just boil down the production into finer categories.

100% disagree.

FIP, BABIP and MPH off the bat are indicators of how well he threw. Not how well he pitched. They have next to zero to do with results. They tell you what maybe he SHOULD have done. Or how filthy he was. But now how good he was.

Last year in the playoff, Hunter Strickland was throwing 100 MPH. He is also NOW a key member of the Giants bully and in the discussion to be a future closer. But DURING THE PLAYOFFS, he almost cost the Giants multiple games. He was not good.

 

[Villain]

100% disagree.

FIP, BABIP and MPH off the bat are indicators of how well he threw. Not how well he pitched. They have next to zero to do with results. They tell you what maybe he SHOULD have done. Or how filthy he was. But now how good he was.

Last year in the playoff, Hunter Strickland was throwing 100 MPH. He is also NOW a key member of the Giants bully and in the discussion to be a future closer. But DURING THE PLAYOFFS, he almost cost the Giants multiple games. He was not good.

I disagree again. There were peripherals that showed he was good. There were peripherals that showed he was bad. They must be taken into context and perspective to tell you the full story. The "good" peripherals were the ones that are relatively trusty barometers for future success, sure, and his "bad" peripherals were the ones that showed you what went wrong.

4.00 SO/BB is a good peripheral
6.5 HR/9 is a bad peripheral

(Good/Bad in the sense that he was good or he was bad, not that the stat is flawed)

Both are derived entirely from his performance. You can draw a predictive interpretation by arguing that "his HR/9 rate is not sustainable but his SO/BB is, therefore he will be better in the future." However, they do not predict anything themselves.

*Yes, those are his actual postseason numbers.

 

[calsnowskier]

I disagree again. There were peripherals that showed he was good. There were peripherals that showed he was bad. They must be taken into context and perspective to tell you the full story. The "good" peripherals were the ones that are relatively trusty barometers for future success, sure, and his "bad" peripherals were the ones that showed you what went wrong.

4.00 SO/BB is a good peripheral
6.5 HR/9 is a bad peripheral

(Good/Bad in the sense that he was good or he was bad, not that the stat is flawed)

Both are derived entirely from his performance. You can draw a predictive interpretation by arguing that "his HR/9 rate is not sustainable but his SO/BB is, therefore he will be better in the future." However, they do not predict anything themselves.

*Yes, those are his actual postseason numbers.

This is a little bit of a detour on the thread purpose, and this really isnt my intention, but I think this is important to the overall discussion...

Are you saying, then, that Strickland had a good post season last year? He didnt walk many. Sure. The outs he recorded were of the K variety. OK. But he was giving up bombs left and right. It doesnt matter HOW you get the outs when looking in the rear-view mirror. It matters how many runs you gave up (HRs can not be judged as anything other than on the pitcher) and how many base-runners you allowed (these were potential outs that had to be accounted for elsewhere - either by yourself or by one of your bully-mates).

If you are trying to argue that Stickland was effective in the playoffs, than I think we just need to agree to disagree and move on. There is little middle-ground that we can match on, I think, on this topic.

 

[Villain]

This is a little bit of a detour on the thread purpose, and this really isnt my intention, but I think this is important to the overall discussion...

Are you saying, then, that Strickland had a good post season last year? He didnt walk many. Sure. The outs he recorded were of the K variety. OK. But he was giving up bombs left and right. It doesnt matter HOW you get the outs when looking in the rear-view mirror. It matters how many runs you gave up (HRs can not be judged as anything other than on the pitcher) and how many base-runners you allowed (these were potential outs that had to be accounted for elsewhere - either by yourself or by one of your bully-mates).

If you are trying to argue that Stickland was effective in the playoffs, than I think we just need to agree to disagree and move on. There is little middle-ground that we can match on, I think, on this topic.

No. I'm just pointing out that you said some advanced stats were saying he'd be good, but the results said he was bad. I'm showing that advanced stats - the ones you've mentioned and the ones I've been using in the Cy Young debate - are not predictors. They are based on the past just like any of the old-school stats like batting average.

You can combine them to say, "oh Dee Gordon is batting .400 but his BABIP is .600 so he's going to regress into the .300s." But the .600 BABIP is not predicting anything. It's just telling you that his batting average is inflated by something unsustainable. It's not saying what his average will be. If I put a .600 BABIP on the table, it doesn't mean "future batting average .274" or something. It just means that 3 out of 5 of the balls he put in play have not been outs. Your own knowledge of baseball is telling you that no one is likely to keep that pace going for 162.

You might be using the stats to TRY to predict the future, and that's what most people do. That doesn't mean they aren't performance or production stats.

Advanced stats are used to attempt to predict the future in projection systems like PECOTA, Steamer, and ZiPS. Those are not in this conversation.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

No. I'm just pointing out that you said some advanced stats were saying he'd be good, but the results said he was bad. I'm showing that advanced stats - the ones you've mentioned and the ones I've been using in the Cy Young debate - are not predictors. They are based on the past just like any of the old-school stats like batting average.

You can combine them to say, "oh Dee Gordon is batting .400 but his BABIP is .600 so he's going to regress into the .300s." But the .600 BABIP is not predicting anything. It's just telling you that his batting average is inflated by something unsustainable. It's not saying what his average will be. If I put a .600 BABIP on the table, it doesn't mean "future batting average .274" or something. It just means that 3 out of 5 of the balls he put in play have not been outs. Your own knowledge of baseball is telling you that no one is likely to keep that pace going for 162.

You might be using the stats to TRY to predict the future, and that's what most people do. That doesn't mean they aren't performance or production stats.

Advanced stats are used to attempt to predict the future in projection systems like PECOTA, Steamer, and ZiPS. Those are not in this conversation.

But they are predictive, because he produced what he produced... Also BABIP is only good when you compare the same player with what they are doing and with what they normally do... A player like dee Gordon SHOULD have a higher BABIP than a player like Nelson Cruz or any other power bat... since HRs are not part of BABIP... BABIP is only for balls in play... But a ground ball hitter with speed is naturally going to have better BABIP...

 

[calsnowskier]

But they are predictive, because he produced what he produced... Also BABIP is only good when you compare the same player with what they are doing and with what they normally do... A player like dee Gordon SHOULD have a higher BABIP than a player like Nelson Cruz or any other power bat... since HRs are not part of BABIP... BABIP is only for balls in play... But a ground ball hitter with speed is naturally going to have better BABIP...

Also, a doubles hitter will naturally have a higher BABIP than a weak-hitting catcher batting 8th or 9th who is only in the Bigs because of his glove. If I were given 350 PAs at the big league level, there is absolutely zero chance that I would even have a 0.100 BABIP. And that would not be a result of simply bad luck.

BABIP is interesting, but really only used to detract from a hitter having a good year.