Quote:
Originally Posted by rpriske
There is no question in my mind that #3 WOULD win in real life.
It is also no question in my mind that #2 SHOULD win.
Wins are a team stat. I think it is fair to use them as a deciding factor, but in this case #2 is WAAAAY better than the others, so a 'deciding factor' should never come into it.
|
There is little recent Cy Young award evidence to support that. Since 2007 the WAR leader has won the Cy Young 8 out of 14 opportunities. That tells me the voters are paying attention. Of the 6 disputable awards only 2 are obvious by WAR. Verlander should have won in 2012 and Halladay should have won in 2011. Interestingly for both players it would have been 2 in a row. That suggests some voters have a reluctance to have repeat winners.
Of the remaining 4 the WAR values were so close that other considerations could justify the choice. One possible exception was Dickey/Kershaw in 2012. Once again the voters seemed reluctant to give Kershaw 2 in a row.
The win leader has won 7 of 14 Cy Young awards since 2007. Of that 7 at least 3 are the obvious choice by WAR and 2 or 3 others are reasonable based on close WAR and other factors. Based on this I'd say that 2 or 3 of the 14 Cy Young winners over the last 7 years have been disputable
Check BR for the data.
MLB Most Valuable Player MVP Awards & Cy Young Awards Winners - Baseball-Reference.com