Highway Robbery (AL Cy Young voting)

[B-Man]

Barry Zito won the Cy Young Award today, which is ridiculous. Pedro also got screwed out of the MVP in '99 when he had the most 1st place votes, but two writers left him off the ballot completely (and he finished second in the voting). Maybe he's used to getting hosed, but reporters should get a life or get a clue. Pedro has a much better ERA and better WHIP than Zito, and lower hits allowed, runs allowed, batting avg. allowed, OPS allowed, HRs allowed, better strikeout/walk ratio, and more strikeouts, but less run support, so Zito got more wins.

Zito had better teammates than Pedro this year, but that doesn't make him a better pitcher. An individual award should not be based on team performance, it should be based on individual performance. There's already an award given for being on the best team--its called a championship.

I can't wait to see who screws A-Rod out of the MVP next week...

[Clarkmeister]

I agree 10000000000000000000% Now not only is the MVP supposed to come from a playoff team (who ever came up with that nonsense), now the Cy Young is the same. Not the best pitcher, but the best pitcher from the best team.

Sadly, I'm used to it. Bonds should have at least two more MVPs than he does, Michael Jordan should have an extra 5, and it is pure idiocy to give the NBA MVP to ANYONE but Shaq as long as he plays more than 85% of the season. Too much of this "I'm bored, I think I'll find someone else to vote for" syndrome. The only sport that ever got it right was the NHL when the Great One won his 6-8 ( forgot the exact #) MVPs in a row.

Absolutely disgusting.

[Dynasty]

The fact that Zito pitched an additional 5 games (35 to 30), had 30 more inning pitched, and had 3 more wins while pitchng against a much more difficult schedule (the AL West) makes this much closer than you are suggesting.

I thought it was a toss-up.

[B-Man]

I agree that the innings and games are in Zito's favor... but they do not outweigh the fact that Pedro's ERA was half a run better, and that Pedro was better in virtually every statistic other than those and wins.

To me, the most important stat for a pitcher is ERA. Wins are based on run support; ERA isn't. The next most important stat is WHIP [(walks + hits)/ innings]--he who gives up the fewest walks and hits is generally the best pitcher (though if you give up a lot of home runs that could skew things). Pedro was first in both of these categories.

It is not Pedro's fault that Zito is in a tougher division. Pedro had a lower ERA against playoff teams, and a lower ERA against teams over .500. Actually, he probably had a lower ERA now matter how you slice it.

[Dynasty]

The next most important stat is WHIP [(walks + hits)/ innings

This sounds like you play too much fantasy baseball. Nothing is more important than winning the game.

[Clarkmeister]

In addition, Zito pitched in one of the best pitchers parks in the AL.

Half a run ERA difference, particularly in the AL is massive. 30IP and 5 starts is not. Is Pedro supposed to play that last game simply to win the Cy Young?

59 more SO, 38 fewer BB, 12 fewer HR.

Zito 23-5, 2.75, 35G, 1CG, 229.1IP, 182H, 79R, 70ER, 78BB, 182SO 25HR. 1.134 WHIP, .218BA, .289 OBP

Pedro 20-4, 2.26, 30G, 2CG, 199.1IP, 144H, 62R, 50ER, 40BB, 239SO, 13HR. .9230 WHIP, .198BA, .259 OBP

[B-Man]

It doesn;t have anything to do with fantasy or roto baseball, it's just logic.

The statistic "wins" is highly dependent on run support, something that no AL pitcher has control over or even contributes to. A pitcher can give up zero runs for 9 innings and not get a win if his team doesn't score, or give up a lot of runs in 5 innings and get a win if his team score more than the opposition. Wins are therefore a measure not just of the pitcher's performance, but how good his team is.

ERA and WHIP are much more pure measures of the pitcher's performance. I think ERA is most important, but generally a pitcher with a low WHIP will also have a low ERA.

[Dynasty]

Winning has less to do with run support than you are suggesting. It is more dependent on situational pitching. The best pitchers are the ones who know how to pitch properly when the game is close (basically, get the key outs) and when the game is not close (VERY basically, don't walk anyone- make them hit).

The best pitcher in the 1980's was probably Jack Morris (and one of the best in the last quarter century). However, his ERA and WHIP were never remarkable. In fact it was over 4.00 three times in a decade when ERA's that high were uncommon for the top pitchers. It was never below 3.00.

Yet, Morris won at least 15 games from 1980 to 1988 in every year except the strike shortened season of 1981 in which he won 14. He won 20 games twice. He was on a couple good Tiger teams but most of the time he played for weak teams.

He was great because he knew how to win.

It's just easy to argue that a low ERA and WHIP are dependent on a team's defense.

maybe they are the most important but that doesnt mean that a particular pitcher who has more wins is better than one who doesnt. obviously teammates make a huge difference, as does the park you play in. hell, red ruffing and lefty gomez are in the hall of fame basically because they played with the yankees, even though both pitchers had a lower winning percentage than the team as a whole during their years with the yanks.

pedro is better in almost every category than zito despite playing in a hitters park. that pretty much says it all.

Pat

[B-Man]

Come on Dynasty, you are usually a lot more logical that that. "Knowing how to win" is a crock. Everyone knows how to win--give up less runs than the other team (or conversely, have your team score more runs than the other). Not giving up runs in key situations is important, but what is most important is not giving up runs, period. ERA is how you measure that. Giving up the fewest amount of walks and hits is another measure of a pitcher's performance.

Getting a win is highly dependend on run support. Bill Gullickson was a 20-game winner for the 1991 Tigers despite a 3.90 ERA. Was that because he "knew how to win" or because he was on a team that scored 817 runs (second in the AL that year)?

Jack Morris was a good pitcher. Was he the best pitcher of the 80s? Maybe, because, as luck would have it, his prime years happened to coincide with that decade. If Roger Clemens was born a few years earlier he would have been the best pitcher of the 80s.

Regardless, when Morris was winning 15 games per year, he also was not giving up many runs--he finished in the top 10 in ERA in 1983, '85, '86 and '87, and his ERA was better than the league average every year from '81 to '87. He wasn't a good pitcher because he "knew how to win", he was a good pitcher because he gave up fewer runs than most pitchers.

[andyfox]

As usual, we agree on baseball (if nothing else /forums/images/icons/wink.gif). I too would have voted for Pedro.

[andyfox]

The best pitcher in the 1980s was Dave Stieb. Jack Morris may well have been number two though.

[andyfox]

Lefty Gomez played with the Yankees from 1930-1942; he had a winning percentage of .652. The Yankees team winning percentage for those years was an incredible .636. But Gomez bettered that.

Ruffing pitched for the Yankees from 1930 through 1942, and again in 1945-46. His winning percentage during those years was .651. The Yankees team winning percentage during those years was .624, so Ruffing too bettered the team winning percentage.

Ruffing started out his career with the Red Sox and his lifetime record when he was traded to the Yankees was 39 wins and 96 losses. They obviously must have seen something in him that was apparent to the naked eye. Hard to think of another Hall of Famer who had a .289 winning percentage after 135 decisions.

He was a helluva hitter too. .269 lifetime average with 98 doubles and 36 home runs. He hit over .300 eight times and apparently must have been used fairly often as a pinch hitter because he pitched in 624 games, but appeared in 882.

He had two stolen base attempts in his career. He got caught stealing in 1926 and apparently didn't like it; didn't attempt one again until 1939 and was successful.

[andyfox]

"Is Pedro supposed to play that last game simply to win the Cy Young?"

No, but he's supposed to play for some reason. I'm a big Pedro fan, like I say, I would have voted him the Cy Young winner, but it seems like he decided he wasn't going to pitch any more towards the end of the season because, well, because he wasn't going to pitch any more. Maybe I'm wrong (John Cole?), but if this was the case, he certainly owes the fans more than that.

[Ed Miller]

Honestly, I don't blame Pedro. He is a fantastic pitcher, but he is very fragile... and he knows it. If the Sox are eliminated from the playoffs, I have no problem if Pedro calls it quits for the season, especially if it's only a game or two. It's like folding when you know you are behind... better to save that bet for the next hand. Being a Red Sox fan, I'd rather see Pedro healthy next year than see him pitch one last meaningless game.

[Glenn]

What about Nolan Ryan? I mean I know it's really trendy right now to say Nolan stinks and stuff but the guy pitched 27 seasons and held opposing hitter to an average under 200. Now I'm not saying he's the best ever, but certainly better than Stieb and Morris. I like Stieb and Morris, and they have more wins in the 80's, but Nolan beats them otherwise. I agree with Dynasty that wins are important and some pitchers "know how to win". I doubt you will argue that Nolan lacked this competitive edge, however. Also, the too many walks arguement always used to dismiss Ryan isn't applicable here since both Steib and Morris walked lots of batters and Ryan had his season totals under 100 in the 80's for the most part. He was not the best pitcher any year in the 80's (although 1989 was amazing considering his age), but he was consistant.

[Glenn]

His fragility is a major reason his ERA is so low, IMO. Anytime he does anything wrong or gets into trouble, they pull him. Most teams will stay with their star pitchers longer than their other starters and let them try to work even on their bad days. But with Pedro, it seems like they start warming the pen when he throws a ball. They are so afraid he will get injured that he is gone as soon as he starts to slip a little. When Johnson or Schilling doesn't have it, they usually are allowed to give up 7 or so runs before they get the hook. This may be just my impression since I am not from Boston and don't get to watch him pitch every week, but it just seems like other pitchers have to keep working when they don't have their best stuff and Pedro gets to sit because "he must be hurt" or "he will get hurt". This is not to dismiss his greatness, he has the best stuff in baseball (although I'd want RJ on my team), but I think what I have described is a major reason his ERA is much less than that of the other stars. As far as the CY award goes, it was close but I'm glad Zito got it. Pedro is a better pitcher when he pitches, but it is always a question how long he can go or if he'll go at all. Zito just pitches. Plus the Red Sox sold Babe Ruth.

thats all i got to say

that was off the top of my head. oops! but i think the point is still made. i dont think either would have been a hall of famer woithout the yankees.

Pat

[B-Man]

Pedro should have pitched one more time, the final saturday against the Devil Rays, no question (even though it was a meaningless game). Just because he is a superstar, that doesn't give him the right to shut it down when his team is eliminated.

Now he is saying that the team told him not to pitch his final start, but I think that is revisionist history.

I don't think Pedro is a perfect person or has an ideal personality; he is very thin-skinned and overreacts to a lot of incidents. But I don't think comments he made or his failing to pitch in a meaningless game should take away from his tremendous season. When he is on the mound, he gives 100%, and the results are usually spectacular.

[B-Man]

I agree 100%, he is fragile and why risk injury in a meaningless game... except that I think it would have been better for him to let Larry Luccino or Grady Little make that call.

[B-Man]

I don't think there is any validity to that. This year is really the first time you could argue that the Sox used a quick hook with Pedro; look at his numbers from 1998 - 2000, he pitched a lot of innings despite missing a few starts each year due to injury. In 2001 obviously he was injured... His ERA has always been low since his breakout year in 1997, but only in 2002 could you say that he was pulled from games quickly.

[John Cole]

I believe that Pedro pitched into at least the eigth inning eight times whereas Zito made it four times. Of course, neither pitcher makes this decision. Pedro should have gone out and won a meaningless game against Tampa to win the Cy Young, but it hardly matters, I think. Roger Clemens will go to the Hall of Fame; Bob Welch will not. Jury's out on Zito, but the odds are against him.

John

BTW, pitching more innings allows you the opportunity to lower ERA; the bad starts hurt less.

[B-Man]

Brilliant logic, I'm very impressed. I guess to use your own logic on you, I could say it is not called the "wins" award or the "most starts" award, either.

[andyfox]

Yeah, I'm a Yankee fan and I think they benefitted enormously by pitching with great teams. Gomez was "just" 189 games, I doubt he would have made the HOF had he pitched for another team (going 6-0 in the World Series no doubt helped his HOF cause); Ruffing had a long career and seemed to get better with age, but with that terrible start, one shudders to think of what his lifetime record would have been had he, for example, remained with Boston (sorry John Cole) through the 1930s.

[andyfox]

"BTW, pitching more innings allows you the opportunity to lower ERA; the bad starts hurt less."

Depends whether the innings come from additional starts, or pitching longer in few games. I know, for example, that Andy Pettitte's ERA has suffered over the years because Torre tends to let him throw deep into the 7th and 8th sometimes where he would pull another pitcher earlier.

[Boris]

I think you're over stating the case. Pedro is a better pitcher than Zito. But the fact of the matter is that after the first 6 weeks of the season, Zito was a guaranteed win when the A's needed a win. Pedro's problem, and to a greater extent A-Rod's problem, is that he plays on a team that sucks. Zito pitched in way more situations that "mattered" than did Pedro. Zito was on a team that was an exciting team to watch during the regular season. Whether you like or not, the sports writers look at those sorts things when they vote for the individual awards.

[B-Man]

You have an interesting definition of "sucks", considering the Red Sox won 93 games this year. They weren't as good as the A's, but they didn't exactly suck, either.

So Zito was a guaranteed win? Lets assume thats correct... don't you think Pedro would have been a guaranteed win for that team, too? Pedro gave up fewer runs than Zito, and Pedro has performed at a top level many times in clutch situations and the playoffs (check out the 1999 playoffs--7 no-hit innings in relief of Game 5 vs. the Indians, pitching with an injury), so it is not as if he can't perform under pressure.

Like some of the other posters, and many of the sports writers, you are giving Zito credit for help he got from his teammates, versus what he himself contributed. Pedro was a better pitcher this year, period.

Answer this--let's say you are the GM of a neutral team (could be a good team or a bad team), and you have a choice of Pedro or Zito for one season, knowing ahead of time how they will perform (as they performed this year). Who would you rather have?

Andy,

Great story from, if memory serves, Casey Stengel (but I read it a long time ago, so you might remember the details, but here's the gist).

In front of a reporter he calls over one of his players (Yankee) and asks him, "What are you hitting?"

"I don't know."

"What's your RBI total?"

"I don't know."

"What's your fielding percentage?"

"I don't know."

"How much did you make for winning the Series?"

That one he knew.

John

[M2d]

With Lowe on the same team, martinez had to be heads and shoulders above Zito to beat him out. Not fair, maybe, but that's the way it goes.

[Boris]

Sorry but the Red Sox do suck. Considering their division and payroll, they should have had 100+ wins last season and a wild card spot in the playoffs.

But it could be worse. You could be an A's fan like me and every year have high hopes only to watch your team fall apart in the post-season.

[B-Man]

Sorry but the Red Sox do suck. Considering their division and payroll, they should have had 100+ wins last season and a wild card spot in the playoffs.

Sorry, but stating that a team that won 93 games sucks is just idiotic. Their division was average--not as good as the west, but better than the central (check the standings). 93 wins is a lot, and many years will be enough for a playoff spot.

Their payroll has nothing to do with whether or not they "suck." If you want to argue they underachieved, or have overpaid players, thats a different issue.

[Glenn]

", pitching more innings allows you the opportunity to lower ERA; the bad starts hurt less. "

I am not saying Pedro didn't pitch enough innings. I don't want to bother checking but he probably averaged more per start than Zito. What I was saying is that it seems like he doesn't have to pitch when he doesn't have his best stuff. Some days, pitchers just don't have their best stuff. Look at Matt Morris's first start in the LCS and how long they stuck with him. If that were Pedro they would have yanked him after the first three runs. He doesn't get into trouble too much because he is great, but when he does they immediately assume his is hurt or will get hurt and pull him. With other stars the teams stick with their best as long as possible. When he isn't at his best, he doesn't pitch. This lowers his ERA.

[B-Man]

What I was saying is that it seems like he doesn't have to pitch when he doesn't have his best stuff. Some days, pitchers just don't have their best stuff. Look at Matt Morris's first start in the LCS and how long they stuck with him. If that were Pedro they would have yanked him after the first three runs.

Glenn,

I don't there is any factual basis to support what you are saying. The Red Sox don't pull Pedro out if he gives up a few runs in the first couple of innings. I don't know where you got this perception, but I don't think it is based on reality. Do you have any evidence to support what you are saying?

[Glenn]

First of all, the Matt Morris start may have been a bad example because it was a playoff start and they would likely stick with Pedro in the Playoffs. I just wanted to choose something that everyone had seen. I get the perception that they do this from watching the games he pitches. As I tried to make clear in my original post, I am not from Boston so I don't get to see every game, so maybe I am imagining it. But take a look at how much this could effect his ERA:

1. He missed about 5 or 6 starts. Lets assume he was forced to tough it out for one of them and went six innings, giving up 4 runs since he wasn't feeling his best.

2. They stick with him just a bit longer when he is in trouble or is tiring. Lets say an extra 6 innings for the season. In these 6 innings he could easily give up 4 more runs. If you think this is too much, there are times when he could face just one more batter, get credit for 0 IP and give up a 2 run single. It could easily be way more than this if he gets a little unlucky.

This small difference would drive his ERA up to 2.47 (not that 2.47 is terrible). Now I'm not saying this is an exact scenario, but it must be considered because even if it is not drastic, it can have a pretty big effect on the ERA statistic. So while I probably can never prove this happens, it is important to at least consider. I don't fault Pedro or his management if this is the case, but you can't fault Zito either because his managers let him pitch longer.

[B-Man]

I'm not faulting anyone for anything. I just think you need to judge them on what they did, not on what they might have done under different circumstances, as it seems you are suggesting.