Of course awards are a minor issue, but it still bothers me that the best candidates are very often left off the ballot. It seems that the most heavily weighted criteria by far is wins. This means that many times the ballot gets filled with above average starters who have gotten great run support or, even better, relief pitchers who have lucked into a huge win total. Meanwhile, there are sub 3 ERA, ~1.00 WHIP starters who have a few less wins than the candidates, yet are far more deserving of a nomination.
It would be nice if the Cy Young selection formula could be re-evaluated.

Are you going to copy MLB with your suggestions?

I'm not saying it's not a legit gripe, but it's pretty close to real life in that respect.

If we want to mimic RL, the MVP candidates should be chosen based off of batting average and home runs instead of runs created. Also, the guys with high temper should probably get removed from the list because they don't get along well with the media.

It was a load of crap that Welch won the AL Cy Young in 1990 when Stewart was the best pitcher. Great run support and bullpens should not be the leading factors to award the Cy Young.

Posted by overeasy on 7/19/2010 6:40:00 PM (view original):
If we want to mimic RL, the MVP candidates should be chosen based off of batting average and home runs instead of runs created. Also, the guys with high temper should probably get removed from the list because they don't get along well with the media.

It was a load of crap that Welch won the AL Cy Young in 1990 when Stewart was the best pitcher. Great run support and bullpens should not be the leading factors to award the Cy Young.

Welch and Stewart were teammates.  Wouldn't they have had the same run support and bullpens?

I just remembered Stewart being the ace of the staff during that earthquake interrupted World Series. Researching it, a pre 'roids Roger Clemens was actually the guy that got screwed out of a 7th Cy Young when he went 21-6 with a 1.93 ERA compared to Welch's 27-6 and 2.95 ERA.

The thing that seems wrong in one of my worlds is that the current Cy Young candidates list has 2 guys who have an ERA over 3.50 and WHIPs 1.25+ are on the list, while the two best starters in the league have ERAs ~2.80 and 2.40 and WHIPs barely over 1 are not. The only stat favoring the 2 guys on the list is more wins. 

Yup, Clemens was better in '90 in every pitching category that matters except wins.  Not really sure how he didn't win when you consider he pitched 4 fewer games than Welch that season and still had twice as many K's and an ERA that was a full point lower.  

Wins are overrated as a pitching category.

Unless you're Steve Carlton and win 27 games for a 59 win team.

So the final season tally for a guy getting robbed of being a Cy Young nominee are as follows:
13 -6, 26 QS, 214 IP, 225 SO, .197 OAV, .269 OBP, .303 SLG, 1.05 WHIP, 2.31 ERA

How he ranked in the league:
Wins - T14th, 12 behind leader
QS - 1st
IP - 15th, 30 behind leader
SO - 1st
OAV - 2nd, .001 behind leader
OBP - 1st
SLG - 1st
WHIP - T1st
ERA - 1st

Should the fact that my bullpen tied for the league lead with 24 blown saves be the only reason that he is not a Cy Young candidate?  (A reliever with 108 IP and inferior stats is the 5th candidate with 16 wins)

Posted by jcahill on 7/20/2010 2:19:00 PM (view original):
Yup, Clemens was better in '90 in every pitching category that matters except wins.  Not really sure how he didn't win when you consider he pitched 4 fewer games than Welch that season and still had twice as many K's and an ERA that was a full point lower.  

Wins are overrated as a pitching category.

Unless you're Steve Carlton and win 27 games for a 59 win team.

So, let me get this straight; you'd rather have a pitcher with great statistical categories than a pitcher that wins?

Typical math nerd response, and why HOF and award arguments have become a load of statistically manipulated BS.

So by that logic, a team that scores 10 runs per game has a staff full of the best pitchers because each of them is "a pitcher that wins."

Checking his game logs, he left the game 9 times with the lead in the 7th inning or later and did not get the win, including 4 in which he did not give up a run. So my crappy bullpen this season makes him less of a pitcher?

A pitcher's win total has as much to do with his team (and other factors) as it does his individual performance. This year Felix Hernandez is 2nd in the AL in K's and ERA and 1st in Quality Starts and IP, but he only has 7 wins. 30 pitchers in the AL alone have more wins than Felix. So, how many of those guys would you rather have on your team? Not many.

Wins as a statistical category are overrated. Not entirely unimportant, but overrated. ERA, WHIP, QS, OAV just to name a few are more important indicators of a pitcher's performance.

And there's this. In 2006, we saw a pitcher who was the exact opposite of Felix. Randy Johnson, who won 17 games for the Yankees, but had a 5.00 ERA. How? Well, the Yankees averaged more than 6 runs per game when he pitched and scored more than 10 runs five times. So, was he a dominant pitcher? I'd say no.

So, would I rather have a pitcher with great statistical categories? Yes. Because if he plays for a team that scores runs, he'll win more games.