Weaver's 14 wins seems more impressive to me, considering the 2 runs per game the Angels support him with.

The obvious question: Could Sabathia actually be twice the size of Cy Young himself? BB-ref says Young was 6'2" and 210 (huge for his day) so that remains unlikely.

Right now Weaver's the guy in my book and I don't think it's a tough call. There's a long way to go of course.

What irritates me about this article is something that I thought about in the Concepcion thread. I'm fine with people having a different opinion on a matter but it pisses me off when they act as if something that is either/or is blatantly obvious. I understand why Kernan thinks Sabathia deserves the Cy Young but the tone of the article is very much "only an idiot would think otherwise" and even the area where Sabathia has the edge (wins) it is far from a slam dunk.

So do losses matter too? Because CC has more losses than Weaver...

So do losses matter too? Because CC has more losses than Weaver...

Losses don't matter unless you have 10 or more or if you have 3 or fewer. Anywhere between 4 and 9, it's a null category.

19-5 is worse than 22-9. But 22-10 is definitely worse than 19-3.

We know these things to be true.

I'm fine with people having a different opinion on a matter but it pisses me off when they act as if something that is either/or is blatantly obvious.

Isn't saying "I don't think it's a tough call" an indication that you think it's blatantly obvious?

Isn't saying "I don't think it's a tough call" an indication that you think it's blatantly obvious?

Heh, I suppose so. I would hope my wording made it clear that that was my opinion and I wasn't trying to disparage those who disagree but....yeah.

:-)

Anyway, I agree that it's not time to discuss the Cy Young Award yet. Not until Jeff Karstens stops being a candidate for the NL one.

My inconsistency alarm went off when he picked on Verlander for compiling great numbers against the inferior AL Central, but then later commended Sabathia for dominating AL East opponents Toronto and Baltimore. Sabathia, as the author notes, is winless against Boston this season.

Something tells me if the guy wrote for the LA Times or the Detroit Whatever instead of the NY Post, this article would be slightly different.

I am eagerly anticipating any public Steinbrenner comments when C.C. opts-out and becomes a free agent this upcoming offseason.

and Verlander sure is horrid vs. the AL West - 1-4, with a 2.45 ERA, 36 2/3 innings, 36 K's, lost 2-0 to Texas and 1-0 to LA.......

We've had this discussion from time to time. But what's a better indicator of quality than Wins? I seem to recall people saying quality start wasn't much better. Game score?

I think a good analysis for pitchers has to include some form of game to game review. It's not a matter of "pitching to the score" as much as pitchers generally (even in a full season) have a small enough sample size that a couple of bad outings can really skew the numbers.

I'm a fan of the Quality Start myself. It's far from perfect but I think it's a really quick and easy way to get a sense of who is consistently giving his team a chance to win.

Right now Weaver's the guy in my book and I don't think it's a tough call. There's a long way to go of course.

Curious why you think this is the case. As a Tigers fan, I would vote for Verlander, but would have no real problem with Weaver as they are pretty close statistically. Same number of wins, Weaver has a better ERA and WAR (though Verlander was leading in that category a week ago), Verlander has more IP and SO, plus the no hitter.

Again, I think Weaver is a fine choice, but don't see how you can say it is not a tough call.

[Edit] Also, I think at this point, Sabathia is clearly behind both of these two.

As a Tigers fan, I would vote for Verlander, but would have no real problem with Weaver as they are pretty close statistically. Same number of wins, Weaver has a better ERA and WAR (though Verlander was leading in that category a week ago), Verlander has more IP and SO, plus the no hitter.

Huge gap in quality wins out over small gap in quantity, and even that goes away when you account for the fact that Verlander has one more start than Weaver.

Huge gap in quality wins out over small gap in quantity

How are those quality wins measured?

Curious why you think this is the case. As a Tigers fan, I would vote for Verlander, but would have no real problem with Weaver as they are pretty close statistically. Same number of wins, Weaver has a better ERA and WAR (though Verlander was leading in that category a week ago), Verlander has more IP and SO, plus the no hitter.

I think the ERA advantage is a big one. A half a run is pretty sizable and I think the innings difference and the WHIP advantage are small enough not to be significant. Verlander's edge in Ks is a point in his favor but ultimately it comes down to run prevention for me. Weaver also has an ever so slight edge in unearned runs allowed though that's small enough to be unimportant also. I probably overreached when I said it wasn't a tough call though.

Something tells me if the guy wrote for the LA Times or the Detroit Whatever instead of the NY Post, this article would be slightly different.

This isn't a case of local bias, it's a "the stat geeks have taken my game" bias. This author has had a major axe to grind with the recent CYs, culminating in Felix last year. He's carried it into this season with Tweets following no support loses by Felix. If the Mariners lose today look for Felix to take a lot of shots from this author and similarly minded writers.

How are those quality wins measured?

He wasn't saying "quality wins". He was saying a "huge gap in quality prevails over small gap in quantity".

How are those quality wins measured?

Wins was a verb in that sentence.

Off-topic(ish), but I learned yesterday that Kernan made an unsubstantiated claim, back in the day (October 2004), that New England high schools were including CHB's "excellent" Curse of the Bambino in their English curriculums. I really hope he was just trying to make a funny.

Curse of the Bambino was being taught in sex education classes as an abstinence method.

As post 20 clarifies above, I misread. Don't think I agree that the gap is that large. WAR has them very close (though I recognize WAR for pitchers may not be the best metric). As I said, I think they are close, but don't have a problem with Weaver winning it.

It is also funny to compare CC's wins to Weaver and Verlander, when you consider that it is a one win advantage. Not the huge difference from last year.

the cy young is NOT for "most wins"

i bet you don't see kiernan screaming about how russ ortiz didn't win the cy with 22 wins for the braves back in 03 or 04

i really REALLY don't get why so many writers/fans really do not think that run support or bullpens have anything to do with win/loss for the starting pitchers

This isn't a case of local bias, it's a "the stat geeks have taken my game" bias. This author has had a major axe to grind with the recent CYs, culminating in Felix last year. He's carried it into this season with Tweets following no support loses by Felix. If the Mariners lose today look for Felix to take a lot of shots from this author and similarly minded writers.

Not that you are wrong, but fangraphs WAR has CC well ahead of any other AL pitcher at 5.6 with Verlander and Weaver second, both at 5.1(Halladay leads NL at 5.3).

BB-Ref has Weaver at 6.0, Verlander at 5.8, Beckett at 4.9, and CC at 4.8.

Too close to call with more than 2 months left, but the Bill James/Rob Neyer "Cy Predictor" [not sure if it is designed to forecast "who will" or "who should" win] has it this way:

RK PLAYER TEAM CYP G GS IP ER K SV SHO W-L ERA VB
1 Weaver LAA 151.9 22 22 161.0 32 134 0 2 14-4 1.79 5
2 Sabathia NYY 145.1 23 23 168.2 48 156 0 1 15-5 2.56 5
3 Verlander DET 144.6 23 23 173.0 45 169 0 2 14-5 2.34 3

No one else is close, but there is time for any of these guys to pull away.

Not that you are wrong, but fangraphs WAR has CC well ahead of any other AL pitcher at 5.6 with Verlander and Weaver second, both at 5.1(Halladay leads NL at 5.3).

Absolutely. I was taking a position on the writer, not the Cy Young pick (I'm in the "it's a little early" camp). It's also possible to have the saber-deserving-MVP-candidate lead the league in RBI. A writer arguing for such a player based on RBI would be subject to the same criticism from me.

Once upon a time...

In 1936 when the very first HOF balloting was done, the writers didn't have all the stats available that we have today, but as far as they knew at the time - who won the most games?

1. Cy Young
2. Walter Johnson
3. Christy Mathewson

So, of course, how did the initial voting turn out? You would think in the order listed above, right? Actually, here's who got the most votes:

1. Christy Mathewson
2. Walter Johnson
3. Cy Young

The actual voting % was reversed compared to wins. Mathewson & Johnson received enough votes to get elected that first year; Cy Young was left on the outside looking in and would have to wait until the next year to get elected.

So how come the BBWAA recognized back in 1936 that "most wins" doesn't necessarily = "best pitcher"?

Yet, 20 years later in 1956 when it was finally decided to start handing out an annual pitching award, they called it the "Cy Young" award and not the "Christy Mathewson" award. Something changed in the mindset of writers and it has plagued us ever since.

I haven't seen anything by Bill James or John Thorn or other baseball historians that explains what happened in that 20 year intervening period, but it's a significant change, and it influences how the writers vote even today.

Has anybody out there read anything that explains this?

Has anybody out there read anything that explains this?

I have not read anything so this is just a guess on my part but Mathewson and Johnson had passed away many years earlier. Cy Young died in November of 1955 and the next year was the first year an award in his name was given out. I would not be especially surprised to learn that there was a connection between those two events.

Curious why you think this is the case. As a Tigers fan, I would vote for Verlander, but would have no real problem with Weaver as they are pretty close statistically. Same number of wins, Weaver has a better ERA and WAR (though Verlander was leading in that category a week ago), Verlander has more IP and SO, plus the no hitter.

All that matters is really the tremendous era+ advantage, along with more unearned runs for Verlander separates it even more. Both have 20 quality starts....the innings pitched is not really that big of a deal, if Weaver hasn't missed a start it's pretty neglible to be honest. I really hope that there aren't people using pitchers War for the Cy Young arguments(I guess it's better than Keith Laws or the other guy that used FIP for their argument, but not by much.)

In 1936 when the very first HOF balloting was done, the writers didn't have all the stats available that we have today, but as far as they knew at the time - who won the most games?

1. Cy Young
2. Walter Johnson
3. Christy Mathewson

So, of course, how did the initial voting turn out? You would think in the order listed above, right? Actually, here's who got the most votes:

1. Christy Mathewson
2. Walter Johnson
3. Cy Young

I thought part of the problem was that Cy overlapped the century mark and not everyone was sure how to treat that in the voting. I didn't think it was based upon consensus reputation.

Sabathia looks twice the 'Cys'

But has he been trained in the way of the seven sighs?

the innings pitched is not really that big of a deal, if Weaver hasn't missed a start it's pretty neglible to be honest.

But he did miss the start. Not sure how we can just hand waive that away.

That being said, I understand that many, if not most, believe the ERA advantage outweighs the other factors. Again, I have no problem thinking Weaver is ahead (I think it is a reasonable position), just surprised by those who think it is a no brainer.

the innings pitched is not really that big of a deal, if Weaver hasn't missed a start it's pretty neglible to be honest

I'd vote for Weaver, too, but I don't necessarily agree with this assertion. Durability is quite important, especially for a single-season award.

Now, one missed start isn't much, which is why I would still choose Weaver in a close decision. However, to simply handwave away the IP advantage in this manner doesn't sit well with me.

EDIT: Coke to JDLink.

Has anybody out there read anything that explains this?



I have not read anything so this is just a guess on my part but Mathewson and Johnson had passed away many years earlier. Cy Young died in November of 1955 and the next year was the first year an award in his name was given out. I would not be especially surprised to learn that there was a connection between those two events.

I was going to suggest that maybe writers started to value wins more in the later 30s because they got more used to the high offensive level of that period and realized that they couldn't compare dead ball run prevention to contemporary run prevention, and then continued to value them that much because of a combination of inertia and the fact that offensive levels continued to fluctuate. But the other mid-century opinions of sports writers don't indicate that they had any understanding of the fluctuation of offensive levels and the difficulty of comparing players from different eras. Jose's explanation makes more sense.

1. Christy Mathewson
2. Walter Johnson
3. Cy Young

1. NEW YORK
2. Washington
3. st. louis/cleveland

Edit: j/k

fangraphs WAR has CC well ahead of any other AL pitcher at 5.6 with Verlander and Weaver second

Well, fangraphs WAR for pitchers is and always has been a bit of a joke, really.

Nobody's handwaving away some massive difference in quantity, by the way -- it's eight innings, or, as people have noted, one start. If it were more like fifteen or twenty innings, then we'd be talking. But I'll take a missed start with an ERA+ a few dozen points higher every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I thought part of the problem was that Cy overlapped the century mark and not everyone was sure how to treat that in the voting.

Yes. a separate committee was set up to look at pre-1900 players. And it wasn't clarified which group Young would be part of, so he got a bunch of votes from both, but not enough for induction by either.

Pitchers have always been toughest for the writers I suppose. Position player usage has stayed pretty constant over time. Sure there was a shift of offense/defense between 3B and 2B and, once upon a time, CF hit about the same as LF and RF (i.e. CF defense wasn't valued as much). And of course we've had high- and low-scoring eras requiring adjustment for context. But in general, a LF is an LF is an LF.

But pitcher usage has been in constant flux and the voters have always struggled with it. They seemed to be getting some handle on it -- Robin Roberts (near 500 record) and Bob Lemon (short career) not having to live up to the standards of a Johnson or Grove. Then the 60s-70s studs came along and you couldn't swing a cat without hitting a 300-game winner (plus Gibson, Jenkins, Marichal and Drysdale). They're now back to struggling with the adjustment that they'll never see guys like that again -- and Blyeleven was the first starter elected since Ryan in 1999. Their angst will soon be relieved as they get to vote for Maddux et al, a group which probably only sets an unrealistic standard for this generation of starters.

Their angst will soon be relieved as they get to vote for Maddux et al, a group which probably only sets an unrealistic standard for this generation of starters.

That's my worry with Halladay. It's probably unfounded. But measured against Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Pedro, he doesn't look so great. Especially if another crop of ridiculous pitching stars pops up before his ballot comes up.

Though I probably need not worry. All those CGs should make the voters happy.

the innings pitched is not really that big of a deal, if Weaver hasn't missed a start it's pretty neglible to be honest.

But he did miss the start. Not sure how we can just hand waive that away.

I'd vote for Weaver, too, but I don't necessarily agree with this assertion. Durability is quite important, especially for a single-season award.

You both misread this; Weaver hasn't missed a start, he simply has one fewer because of the way the rotations shook out surrounding the goofy midseason exhibition game.

Nobody's handwaving away some massive difference in quantity, by the way -- it's eight innings, or, as people have noted, one start. If it were more like fifteen or twenty innings, then we'd be talking. But I'll take a missed start with an ERA+ a few dozen points higher every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Agreed, I was just pointing out the flaw with the argument in general - you can't say, "Oh, it's OK that he pitched fewer innings, because he also pitched fewer games."

(And I do see that Greg Maddux School of Reflexive Profanity pointed out Weaver's missed start wasn't due to (a lack of) durability, but rather scheduling quirks. Thanks for the clarification.)

EDIT: And this definitely isn't worth arguing any further. It's partially misinterpretation (as GMSoRP pointed out), and partially arguing for the sake of it. I will stand down. :)

You both misread this; Weaver hasn't missed a start, he simply has one fewer because of the way the rotations shook out surrounding the goofy midseason exhibition game.

I'm glad someone answered that, I'm looking at his game logs now and I couldn't find a missed start, I had assumed it was just the rotation thing, but it didn't help his case that his team kept the rotation intact for the all star game while it looked like the others re-did their rotation.

Once upon a time...

In 1936 when the very first HOF balloting was done, the writers didn't have all the stats available that we have today, but as far as they knew at the time - who won the most games?

1. Cy Young
2. Walter Johnson
3. Christy Mathewson

So, of course, how did the initial voting turn out? You would think in the order listed above, right? Actually, here's who got the most votes:

1. Christy Mathewson
2. Walter Johnson
3. Cy Young

The actual voting % was reversed compared to wins. Mathewson & Johnson received enough votes to get elected that first year; Cy Young was left on the outside looking in and would have to wait until the next year to get elected.

So how come the BBWAA recognized back in 1936 that "most wins" doesn't necessarily = "best pitcher"?

Yet, 20 years later in 1956 when it was finally decided to start handing out an annual pitching award, they called it the "Cy Young" award and not the "Christy Mathewson" award. Something changed in the mindset of writers and it has plagued us ever since.

I haven't seen anything by Bill James or John Thorn or other baseball historians that explains what happened in that 20 year intervening period, but it's a significant change, and it influences how the writers vote even today.

Has anybody out there read anything that explains this?

As others have mentioned, there were two ballots for the first class of the Hall of Fame, one for pre-1900 players, and one for post-1900 players. Five were supposed to be elected from each group. Young's career split the time period almost exactly evenly, so he got votes in both categories. He came fourth among pre-1900 players, and sixth among post-1900 players. In the "old-timers" election, 59 of 84 votes were needed to reach 75%, and no-one got more than 40 votes (Anson and Ewing), so no-one was elected.

As for the Cy Young Award, originally there was only one award, covering pitchers in both leagues. Young was selected for the name because he had outstanding careers in the both the National and American Leagues, and so could represent any pitcher selected, unlike Mathewson, Alexander, or Johnson, who spent their whole career in one league.

59 of 84 votes were needed to reach 75%

In my post above, that should have been 59 of 78. Sorry.

I think the question is, how many wins do we think the other contenders would have with CC's run support. Runs per game by Yankees in Sabathia starts, from Game 1:

6
4
0
6
15
12
2
12
0
13
5
7
3
3
12
10
8
5
9
1
4
1
4

13 starts where they scored at least 5 runs. He went 11-0, and the Yankees won all of them.
Plus he's 2-1 when they score 4 runs.
And he has a 3-2 and a 1-0 win.

So is it that "wins are important," or does run support also come into play?

1. Christy Mathewson
2. Walter Johnson
3. Cy Young

That is also the order they appear in at the top of the Hall of Fame Standards listing.

29% of Weaver's innings have come against the two worst offenses in the AL.

Wins matter.

Which pitcher is assigned credit for the win by the scorekeeper, not so much.