I did some statistics, and IN GENERAL, for FULL-TIME STARTERS, their W-L record OVER A FULL SEASON is a good indicator of "quality". Better pitchers allow fewer baserunners, fewer runs, and win more games.
The difference between a 21-game winner and a 19-game winner is probably due to other factors unrelated to their pitching, so in those cases you'd check out the other numbers. But a 19-game winner is almost definitely going to be a better pitcher than a 9-game winner.
Once again Joe, some great perspective! Being about five years your elder, what You write makes so much sense!! Keep up the great Baseball ⚾️ Writing ✍️- I love it!!!
So here’s an all-timer question - if Gibson and McLain were in the same league in 1968 could Gibson’s 1.12 ERA and 13 shutouts have overcome McLain’s 31 wins? Seems awfully similar to Williams and DiMaggio in 1941
With the changing role of starters and the introduction of "openers" and "bullpen games" it is also time to rethink the requirement that a starter go five innings to collect the win. Although I hesitate to introduce more subjectivity in the crediting of wins by letting the official scorer decide, it's become increasingly absurd, in an era when teams regularly parade 5 or 6 pitching out there, to give it to the guy who happens to pitch the fifth inning with his team leading. Maybe set some criteria for games when there isn't a pitcher who is clearly deserving of a W and then give it to whoever was most effective based on those criteria.
Interesting to see Joe look to '09, with Greinke and Lincecum as the turning point. Indeed, 15 and 16 wins are very low based on all-time Cy Young standards. Greinke was tied for 7th behind a slew of 19 and 17 game winners, some perennial all-stars among them. Lincecum was tied for 4th, trailing Wainwright and Carpenter, among others. But 15/16 still seemed like a decent win total by historical norms.
But 2010, to me, was THE turning point. King Felix won the AL Cy -- and it wasn't particularly close -- with a 13-12 record! And it wasn't as if the AL didn't have standard CY-worthy candidates. Price, Sabathia, Lester, and Verlander had gaudy W/L numbers, with the types of peripherals that usually carried the day. Plus all four were big names, some of whom won in other years.
But Felix was just better by any careful analytical measure, and the voters responded accordingly. The Cy Young voting was changed forever. Which is notable as the MVP standards lagged a few years behind, most notably when Cabrera beat out Trout based on winning the triple crown over The Meteor's superior all-around game.
This is not nearly as egregious as picking the Cy by wins, and I think that might turn out the same way today. Part of the reason is that if you are just looking at WAR, that is partially made up of things that most voters just don't look at when looking at a hitter for MVP. They look at production at the plate. I am not saying it should be this way, just saying that it still is, other than now many will look at WAR and the other parts of the game are figured into that.
In 2012, Cabrera was the first player in eons to win the triple crown, and Trout was a rookie, and was definitely going to win rookie of the year. These two things made it easy for most writers, and I think if it happened next year, it would work out the same way. In 2013, Cabrera won what some people termed the modern triple crown, (Batting average, On Base Percentage, Slugging Percentage) and it was hard for most to vote against that. It would be hard now.
What writers didn't look at are things like Trout having 75 more steals in those years (at an 87% success rate) and was much better on the base paths in other ways as well. Or that Cabrera grounded into more than three times as many double plays over the two years. (He led the league in this in 2012) Or that Trout was worth 27 more runs in the field over the two seasons.
I don't think most of them would look at these things now, but they should. For those that look at only WAR, though, I will say that when I am considering for MVP, I take the positional adjustment out. We are talking about the best here, not about how good the minor league guys are compared to them. We would have an awful lot of CFs and SS winners going by WAR.
I don’t have any issue with the CYA vote changing with the times. But for me, the charm of seeing great starters has been lost with the dissolution of the complete game. I’d rather see DeGrom pitch than the array of no-names marching out of the bullpen. I have many issues with the current state of the game, but that is certainly in my Top 5.
I did some statistics, and IN GENERAL, for FULL-TIME STARTERS, their W-L record OVER A FULL SEASON is a good indicator of "quality". Better pitchers allow fewer baserunners, fewer runs, and win more games.
https://pureblather.com/2014/05/20/on-pitchers-wins/
https://pureblather.com/2017/03/28/on-pitchers-wins-ii/
The difference between a 21-game winner and a 19-game winner is probably due to other factors unrelated to their pitching, so in those cases you'd check out the other numbers. But a 19-game winner is almost definitely going to be a better pitcher than a 9-game winner.
Once again Joe, some great perspective! Being about five years your elder, what You write makes so much sense!! Keep up the great Baseball ⚾️ Writing ✍️- I love it!!!
So here’s an all-timer question - if Gibson and McLain were in the same league in 1968 could Gibson’s 1.12 ERA and 13 shutouts have overcome McLain’s 31 wins? Seems awfully similar to Williams and DiMaggio in 1941
With the changing role of starters and the introduction of "openers" and "bullpen games" it is also time to rethink the requirement that a starter go five innings to collect the win. Although I hesitate to introduce more subjectivity in the crediting of wins by letting the official scorer decide, it's become increasingly absurd, in an era when teams regularly parade 5 or 6 pitching out there, to give it to the guy who happens to pitch the fifth inning with his team leading. Maybe set some criteria for games when there isn't a pitcher who is clearly deserving of a W and then give it to whoever was most effective based on those criteria.
Interesting to see Joe look to '09, with Greinke and Lincecum as the turning point. Indeed, 15 and 16 wins are very low based on all-time Cy Young standards. Greinke was tied for 7th behind a slew of 19 and 17 game winners, some perennial all-stars among them. Lincecum was tied for 4th, trailing Wainwright and Carpenter, among others. But 15/16 still seemed like a decent win total by historical norms.
But 2010, to me, was THE turning point. King Felix won the AL Cy -- and it wasn't particularly close -- with a 13-12 record! And it wasn't as if the AL didn't have standard CY-worthy candidates. Price, Sabathia, Lester, and Verlander had gaudy W/L numbers, with the types of peripherals that usually carried the day. Plus all four were big names, some of whom won in other years.
But Felix was just better by any careful analytical measure, and the voters responded accordingly. The Cy Young voting was changed forever. Which is notable as the MVP standards lagged a few years behind, most notably when Cabrera beat out Trout based on winning the triple crown over The Meteor's superior all-around game.
This is not nearly as egregious as picking the Cy by wins, and I think that might turn out the same way today. Part of the reason is that if you are just looking at WAR, that is partially made up of things that most voters just don't look at when looking at a hitter for MVP. They look at production at the plate. I am not saying it should be this way, just saying that it still is, other than now many will look at WAR and the other parts of the game are figured into that.
In 2012, Cabrera was the first player in eons to win the triple crown, and Trout was a rookie, and was definitely going to win rookie of the year. These two things made it easy for most writers, and I think if it happened next year, it would work out the same way. In 2013, Cabrera won what some people termed the modern triple crown, (Batting average, On Base Percentage, Slugging Percentage) and it was hard for most to vote against that. It would be hard now.
What writers didn't look at are things like Trout having 75 more steals in those years (at an 87% success rate) and was much better on the base paths in other ways as well. Or that Cabrera grounded into more than three times as many double plays over the two years. (He led the league in this in 2012) Or that Trout was worth 27 more runs in the field over the two seasons.
I don't think most of them would look at these things now, but they should. For those that look at only WAR, though, I will say that when I am considering for MVP, I take the positional adjustment out. We are talking about the best here, not about how good the minor league guys are compared to them. We would have an awful lot of CFs and SS winners going by WAR.
Good points.
I don’t have any issue with the CYA vote changing with the times. But for me, the charm of seeing great starters has been lost with the dissolution of the complete game. I’d rather see DeGrom pitch than the array of no-names marching out of the bullpen. I have many issues with the current state of the game, but that is certainly in my Top 5.