Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Kernan: Yankees’ Sabathia looks twice the ‘Cys’

Those who ignore history are bound to repeat Kernan.

Sabathia won his major-league-high 15th game. That is what aces do, and this is why Sabathia has the edge over all other AL starters this year, including the incredible Tigers right-hander Justin Verlander.

You can point to Verlander’s statistical advantages over Sabathia, and the Angels’ Jered Weaver is rolling, but give CC the edge. If Verlander or Weaver outduels CC the last nine weeks, give ‘em the Cy Young, but right now it is Sabathia.

...Sabathia was 21-7 last season and finished third in Cy Young voting behind winner Felix Hernandez, who starts today for the Mariners, and the Rays’ David Price.

Getting beat by King Felix can happen, but Hernandez had 13 wins last year and over the last two seasons is 21-21 with the struggling Mariners.

Wins are important. At Cooperstown this past weekend, inductee Pat Gillick said: “Wins matter. Forget about quality starts and forget about all that other stuff.”

Wins matter. No matter what, this will be a great Cy Young race.

Repoz Posted: July 27, 2011 at 01:50 PM | 55 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: angels, awards, projections, sabermetrics, tigers, yankees

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. AROM Posted: July 27, 2011 at 02:12 PM (#3886390)
Weaver's 14 wins seems more impressive to me, considering the 2 runs per game the Angels support him with.
   2. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: July 27, 2011 at 02:18 PM (#3886397)
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.
   3. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 27, 2011 at 02:20 PM (#3886398)
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.
   4. GuyMcGuffin Posted: July 27, 2011 at 02:24 PM (#3886400)
So do losses matter too? Because CC has more losses than Weaver...
   5. GuyMcGuffin Posted: July 27, 2011 at 02:24 PM (#3886402)
So do losses matter too? Because CC has more losses than Weaver...
   6. Baldrick Posted: July 27, 2011 at 02:33 PM (#3886406)
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.
   7. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: July 27, 2011 at 02:34 PM (#3886408)
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?
   8. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 27, 2011 at 02:49 PM (#3886429)
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.
   9. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: July 27, 2011 at 02:56 PM (#3886436)
:-)

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.
   10. Chris Fluit Posted: July 27, 2011 at 02:57 PM (#3886440)
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.
   11. Nasty Nate Posted: July 27, 2011 at 03:01 PM (#3886442)
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.
   12. Bob Tufts Posted: July 27, 2011 at 03:10 PM (#3886448)
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.......
   13. The Piehole of David Wells Posted: July 27, 2011 at 03:19 PM (#3886458)
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?
   14. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 27, 2011 at 03:27 PM (#3886468)
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.
   15. JL Posted: July 27, 2011 at 03:27 PM (#3886471)
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.
   16. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: July 27, 2011 at 03:45 PM (#3886496)
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.
   17. JL Posted: July 27, 2011 at 03:52 PM (#3886505)
Huge gap in quality wins out over small gap in quantity

How are those quality wins measured?
   18. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 27, 2011 at 03:53 PM (#3886509)
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.
   19. WallyBackmanFan Posted: July 27, 2011 at 03:55 PM (#3886511)

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.
   20. Random Transaction Generator Posted: July 27, 2011 at 04:01 PM (#3886518)
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".
   21. SoSH U at work Posted: July 27, 2011 at 04:02 PM (#3886519)
How are those quality wins measured?


Wins was a verb in that sentence.
   22. The Essex Snead Posted: July 27, 2011 at 04:04 PM (#3886520)
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.
   23. Bob Tufts Posted: July 27, 2011 at 04:08 PM (#3886527)
Curse of the Bambino was being taught in sex education classes as an abstinence method.
   24. JL Posted: July 27, 2011 at 04:16 PM (#3886534)
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.
   25. base ball chick Posted: July 27, 2011 at 04:16 PM (#3886535)
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
   26. Randy Jones Posted: July 27, 2011 at 04:19 PM (#3886538)
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.
   27. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 27, 2011 at 04:47 PM (#3886569)
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.
   28. WallyBackmanFan Posted: July 27, 2011 at 05:43 PM (#3886686)
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.
   29. Moeball Posted: July 27, 2011 at 06:02 PM (#3886715)
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?
   30. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 27, 2011 at 06:17 PM (#3886734)
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.
   31. cardsfanboy Posted: July 27, 2011 at 06:20 PM (#3886738)
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.)
   32. cardsfanboy Posted: July 27, 2011 at 06:31 PM (#3886756)
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.
   33. Greg K Posted: July 27, 2011 at 06:40 PM (#3886766)
Sabathia looks twice the 'Cys'

But has he been trained in the way of the seven sighs?
   34. JL Posted: July 27, 2011 at 06:45 PM (#3886772)
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.
   35. Eddo Posted: July 27, 2011 at 06:49 PM (#3886776)
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.
   36. Dr. Vaux Posted: July 27, 2011 at 06:51 PM (#3886781)
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.
   37. Bob Evans Posted: July 27, 2011 at 06:51 PM (#3886782)
1. Christy Mathewson
2. Walter Johnson
3. Cy Young


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

Edit: j/k
   38. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: July 27, 2011 at 06:59 PM (#3886801)
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.
   39. Best Dressed Chicken in Town Posted: July 27, 2011 at 07:20 PM (#3886826)
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.
   40. Walt Davis Posted: July 27, 2011 at 07:51 PM (#3886856)
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.
   41. Greg K Posted: July 27, 2011 at 07:55 PM (#3886866)
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.
   42. Greg Maddux School of Reflexive Profanity Posted: July 27, 2011 at 08:05 PM (#3886879)
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.
   43. Eddo Posted: July 27, 2011 at 09:27 PM (#3886968)
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. :)
   44. cardsfanboy Posted: July 27, 2011 at 10:42 PM (#3887049)
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.
   45. vortex of dissipation Posted: July 28, 2011 at 01:01 AM (#3887211)
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.
   46. vortex of dissipation Posted: July 28, 2011 at 01:24 AM (#3887248)
59 of 84 votes were needed to reach 75%


In my post above, that should have been 59 of 78. Sorry.
   47. Howie Menckel Posted: July 28, 2011 at 01:37 AM (#3887264)
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?
   48. Srul Itza Posted: July 28, 2011 at 02:14 AM (#3887304)
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.
   49. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: July 28, 2011 at 03:23 AM (#3887340)
29% of Weaver's innings have come against the two worst offenses in the AL.
   50. valuearbitrageur Posted: July 28, 2011 at 08:31 AM (#3887395)
Wins matter.

Which pitcher is assigned credit for the win by the scorekeeper, not so much.
   51. NJ in DC (Now with Wife!) Posted: July 28, 2011 at 11:08 AM (#3887403)
It really amuses me to see people ready to give this award to Verlander and Weaver without accounting for the offenses they get to face. Especially Weaver.
   52. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 28, 2011 at 12:31 PM (#3887416)
It really amuses me to see people ready to give this award to Verlander and Weaver without accounting for the offenses they get to face. Especially Weaver.


I can't speak for anyone else but that is something I tried to at least keep in mind. I didn't do anything systematic but why not? We have the tools;

Avg. Runs/Game by Opponents;

Weaver - 4.18
Verlander - 4.34
Sabathia - 4.44

So Sabathia has faced offenses that on average are about 6% better than Weaver and 2% better than Verlander. Weaver's advantage in runs allowed is greater than that 6% so for me he is still the guy. Sabathia gets a perceived credit for pitching in the big mean AL East but I think when people do that sort of mental gymnastics they often don't account for the fact that the AL East is not quite so big and mean for Sabathia who doesn't have to face the 2nd best offense in the league.
   53. NJ in DC (Now with Wife!) Posted: July 28, 2011 at 12:57 PM (#3887427)
From BPro, quality of opponents:

CC: .265/.330/.420
Verlander: .262/.328/.410
Weaver: .260/.326/.404

Given that Oakland and Seattle are hilariously bad offenses playing in extreme pitcher's parks and that LAA is a pitcher's park (if memory serves) I think Weaver's numbers definitely need to be looked at with some level of skepticism. I think it's a 3-man race and any of the 3, at this point, would be a credible winner.
   54. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 28, 2011 at 01:06 PM (#3887431)
Presumably ERA+ is picking up the park effects and I don't think either the numbers you presented or that I put up in #52 account for the difference between Weaver and Sabathia/Verlander.
   55. NJ in DC (Now with Wife!) Posted: July 28, 2011 at 02:23 PM (#3887475)
How is WAR calculated on B-Ref? I'm trying to figure out why the gap between Sabathia and the rest of the field is so much wider there than it is when I look at other systems.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogRays name managerial finalists: Cash, Ibanez, Wakamatsu | Tampa Bay Times
(13 - 3:52am, Nov 23)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4170 - 3:40am, Nov 23)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(99 - 3:12am, Nov 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(18 - 2:55am, Nov 23)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(966 - 2:27am, Nov 23)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogDeadspin: Curt Schilling’s Son Accidentally Brings Fake Grenade To Logan Airport
(12 - 1:50am, Nov 23)
Last: ptodd

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(553 - 1:35am, Nov 23)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-21-2014
(48 - 11:13pm, Nov 22)
Last: Sweatpants

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(28 - 11:04pm, Nov 22)
Last: Squash

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(134 - 10:49pm, Nov 22)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(24 - 10:32pm, Nov 22)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogFriars show interest in dealing for Bruce | MLB.com
(19 - 10:19pm, Nov 22)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogPirates DFA Ike Davis, clear path for Pedro Alvarez - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
(4 - 10:00pm, Nov 22)
Last: jingoist

NewsblogMLB.com: White Sox Land Adam LaRoche With 2 Year/$25M Deal
(19 - 8:03pm, Nov 22)
Last: boteman

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(9 - 7:26pm, Nov 22)
Last: PreservedFish

Page rendered in 0.6510 seconds
52 querie(s) executed