Highway Robbery (AL Cy Young voting)

B-Man · #1 11-07-2002, 04:49 PM

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 · #2 11-07-2002, 05:56 PM

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 · #3 11-07-2002, 08:40 PM

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 · #4 11-07-2002, 08:49 PM

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 · #5 11-07-2002, 09:07 PM

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 · #6 11-07-2002, 09:10 PM

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 · #7 11-07-2002, 09:20 PM

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 · #8 11-07-2002, 09:43 PM

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.

#9 11-07-2002, 10:10 PM

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 · #10 11-07-2002, 10:44 PM

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.