Tough Choice

[sc_superstar]

Who gets the nod for the Cy...normally I woud just leave it to the AI, but my MR had an amazing season for a reliever, but does it beat out the starters? Or is it my own team bias?

[Questdog]

It's not even a contest......anyone who votes for someone other than the guy who went 17-0 has been playing too much fantasy baseball and has lost touch with the real thing.....

[hopeful1212]

If there were a reliever in the real MLB that went 17-0 with a 1.92 ERA and there weren't any starters with 20 wins or an ERA under 2.00, then the reliever would win every time I should think. So, I don't think you're biased in choosing him. The only knock on him is that he pitched fewer innings (and as such has a lower WAR), but he was absolutely dominant when he did pitch. If I were you, I'd choose him as the winner.

[Riverdome]

He's a MR. I would have to see the game log but it's not a slam dunk for me. Impressive that he never blew a lead and 17 times he was pitching when his team came from behind (or tied) to win but that alone doesn't equate to Cy Young for me.

15 wins with over 220IP, nearly 250K is a great season - if this team stinks, he had low run support and he still put up these numbers - he very well might be the CY this season.

18 wins with over 200IP, nearly 200K is a great season too and is worthy of being in the discussion.

[BIG17EASY]

I agree that your guys gets the nod over Lopez. Just curious, I know it's the year 2013 in your league, but are you also using 2013 settings or did import from a different year, by chance?

[sc_superstar]

Its just a standard fictional league started in 2013 using the MLB as a template (the default options it gives you) everything is set to 2013 settings. I actualy changed very little and was happy with the results so far, I cant wait to progress and see how things go.

Upon looking further, KC was horrendus for run support, an above .500 team that was 12th in runs, Lopez was one of two starters with a winning record despite the team sporting the AL's 3rd best starting ERA, they were also 14th in bullpen ERA and defense EFF.

New York scored a boatload of runs so that kind of diminishes the 19 win season

Los Angeles had a solid offense and bullpen, but Stewart had pretty solid stats across the board.

My team had by far the worst starters in the AL 5.75 ERA worst by almost a full run and they were 14 games under .500 (2nd worst only the last place A's were worse) I had alot of SP injuries and was starting guys who should have been in A or AA at best. He had one blown save, but it only lead to a tie and then his 17th win. But he did only have 10 holds, then again with a pitching staff like that most games would be come from behind lol

[JackRules1]

I went with Lopez because:

Great at his age.
Best ERA+ and WAR
2nd Best WHIP
He's "Clueless", like me according to Questdog.

[BMD]

159 innings out the pen without losing a game and keeping his ERA under 2? Yep, give it to the MR.

[FightingIgs]

I went for Alvarez - impressive season! But if you thought that Fredi Gonzalez overused the Braves bullpen in the past - he's got nothing on Alvarez's manager.. 87 games and 159 innings for a reliever? He's gotta have one arm a couple of inches longer than the other by now...

[OmahaBaseball]

Originally Posted by JackRules1

I went with Lopez because:

Great at his age.
Best ERA+ and WAR
2nd Best WHIP
He's "Clueless", like me according to Questdog.

Agreed, Lopez got my vote.

[sc_superstar]

The starters were that bad, despite all having starter stamina, only one averaged 6 innings per start, they threw the least amount of innings by alot, yet walked the most, and had a close to .300 oavg and gave up an OPS over .850

[Charlie Hough]

When has a middle reliever EVER won the Cy Young Award in MLB? The 17 wins are impressive, but if he wasn't valuable enough to be a starter or a closer, can you really say that he was the best pitcher in the league for that season? If he was that good, he should have been the closer.

I don't think you can let the starters' win stats get in the way. Maybe it was a down year for 20-game winners, but that's a reflection of league-wide conditions and competition, not necessarily a lack of value or ability on the part of the starters.

If the starter went 6 or 7 innings in a game, pitched really well, and kept his team in the game, that's far more valuable than the inning that a middle reliever pitched to hold the opposition and pick up a win because his teammates finally took the lead during the next round of at-bats. Wins are too circumstantial to be used as a basis for evaluation.

I would give it to Santiago Lopez. He averaged nearly 7 IP per start, had 1.02 WHIP over 222.1 IP, 42 BB, and 247 K. That's incredibly impressive control and outstanding performance from a starter.

No, he didn't get 20 wins, but neither did Nolan Ryan for all but two seasons in his entire career.

I don't think there is any way that a middle reliever would get the votes.

[hopeful1212]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

When has a middle reliever EVER won the Cy Young Award in MLB? The 17 wins are impressive, but if he wasn't valuable enough to be a starter or a closer, can you really say that he was the best pitcher in the league for that season? If he was that good, he should have been the closer.

LOL! Just like how the run support is out of the starter's control whether he's used as a middle reliever or closer is out of a bullpen guy's control. You're really going to hold it against this guy how he was used by his manager?

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

When has a middle reliever EVER won the Cy Young Award in MLB? The 17 wins are impressive, but if he wasn't valuable enough to be a starter or a closer, can you really say that he was the best pitcher in the league for that season? If he was that good, he should have been the closer.

I don't think you can let the starters' win stats get in the way. Maybe it was a down year for 20-game winners, but that's a reflection of league-wide conditions and competition, not necessarily a lack of value or ability on the part of the starters.

If the starter went 6 or 7 innings in a game, pitched really well, and kept his team in the game, that's far more valuable than the inning that a middle reliever pitched to hold the opposition and pick up a win because his teammates finally took the lead during the next round of at-bats. Wins are too circumstantial to be used as a basis for evaluation.

I would give it to Santiago Lopez. He averaged nearly 7 IP per start, had 1.02 WHIP over 222.1 IP, 42 BB, and 247 K. That's incredibly impressive control and outstanding performance from a starter.

No, he didn't get 20 wins, but neither did Nolan Ryan for all but two seasons in his entire career.

I don't think there is any way that a middle reliever would get the votes.

And Nolan Ryan never won a Cy Young Award.

[Canuck]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

When has a middle reliever EVER won the Cy Young Award in MLB? The 17 wins are impressive, but if he wasn't valuable enough to be a starter or a closer, can you really say that he was the best pitcher in the league for that season? If he was that good, he should have been the closer.

I gaurentee he got a lot more value out of him as a middle reliever than he would've as a closer. How many of those wins would he still have had if you threw an average middle reliever in there.

I can't seem to find the article now but it made a really good argument that you should pitch your best reliever in situations where the game could be on the line in the 7th inning or something. Rather than saving your best pitcher for the 9th inning when the game could very well be in the bag and a much lesser pitcher could do the job. Maybe somebody else knows the piece and can pull it up.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Canuck

I gaurentee he got a lot more value out of him as a middle reliever than he would've as a closer. How many of those wins would he still have had if you threw an average middle reliever in there.

I can't seem to find the article now but it made a really good argument that you should pitch your best reliever in situations where the game could be on the line in the 7th inning or something. Rather than saving your best pitcher for the 9th inning when the game could very well be in the bag and a much lesser pitcher could do the job. Maybe somebody else knows the piece and can pull it up.

That's been written quite often, actually. The save stat is even worse than the win stat. A pitcher can enter in the 7th inning with a one-run lead, bases loaded and nobody out, get a K and a double play and then leave the game. His team scores two runs in the 8th, then Johnny Closer pitches the ninth with a three-run lead and gets the save. Now tell me who really saved that game? Not Johnny Closer.

And a pitcher can also get a save for pitching the last three innings of a 15-2 victory.

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

And Nolan Ryan never won a Cy Young Award.

That wasn't the point of the comparison. Do you think Nolan Ryan was a lesser pitcher because he only won 20 games twice in a long career and never did so after 1974? Hopefully not, and that's the point. He was plagued by poor run support for many years of his career, particularly when he was with the Astros.

[Charlie Hough]

The issue of middle reliever vs. closer has nothing to do with the save stats. I never talked about save stats. I talked about VALUE. The best reliever on a roster is typically going to be put in the closer's role because the overwhelming perception in baseball is that the most valuable time for getting relief outs is in the last couple of innings when the game is considered truly on the line and has to be closed out.

Whether that perception or the stats associated with it is correct is an entirely different subject. And I'm a believer in using your best reliever at any time of the game when you need to get critical outs and preserve a lead or give yourself a chance to come back. So I wouldn't even use the closer role on my staff. But that doesn't mean that my 'stopper' reliever should win the Cy Young over a starter who posted stats that were every bit as good but did it over far more innings and when facing the other team's best hitters multiple times in every start.

I think it's demonstrable from the fact that a middle reliever has never won the Cy Young that a pitcher in that role is probably never going to get the votes. Besides, if he was as good as this pitcher was in OOTP, the manager would almost certainly move him into the closer's role.

But, at the end of the day, my argument is that a starter that pitches 6 or 7 innings of 1.02 WHIP baseball with fantastic control and excellent stats is more valuable than a middle reliever OR a closer who pitched far fewer innings, was used in spots, and didn't have to face the opposition's best hitters multiple times in every appearance. I would probably never vote for a closer for the Cy Young either.

[ihatenames]

Originally Posted by sc_superstar

The starters were that bad, despite all having starter stamina, only one averaged 6 innings per start, they threw the least amount of innings by alot, yet walked the most, and had a close to .300 oavg and gave up an OPS over .850

I voted for Alarez. His performance was above and beyond and with the IP he certainly is deserving.

Have you ever considered putting him into the rotation? He only has two pitches but if your starters are bad he may be more valuable to you there. He has enough stamina to be somewhat effective. His strikeouts would suffer a bit with only 2 pitches to his name, but with his high GB% I think he may still be effective in that role. Especially if you're getting low production out of your starters.

[JMDurron]

Originally Posted by sc_superstar

Upon looking further, KC was horrendus for run support, an above .500 team that was 12th in runs, Lopez was one of two starters with a winning record despite the team sporting the AL's 3rd best starting ERA, they were also 14th in bullpen ERA and defense EFF.

This is what turns it from being just slightly in Lopez's favor to making it an easy choice of Lopez to me.

I wouldn't say that your hesitation is "only" team bias, as it's clearly a close race. I go with the reasoning for Lopez from an earlier post -

"I would give it to Santiago Lopez. He averaged nearly 7 IP per start, had 1.02 WHIP over 222.1 IP, 42 BB, and 247 K. That's incredibly impressive control and outstanding performance from a starter."

If you were choosing between a great reliever and a pretty good starter, I can see the argument for the reliever winning out. This is a choice between a great reliever and a great starter, so the guy who was nearly as dominant for more innings should win out.

Context matters, this isn't the dark ages where we evaluate pitchers purely on W-L anymore. I suspect that Questdog is just trolling, hoping to get someone to pull a Wolf and severely oversell the irrelevance of pitcher wins by using excessively strident language, whereas I will just say that the context matters more than a particular number when it comes to evaluating pitchers. A 2-win difference between the pitchers, when the starter had most of his team blundering about behind him and at the plate during his games, is relatively meaningless. A reliever entering potential blowout games where his team is already down by many runs would be effectively insured against accumulating losses, and this is a luxury that a starter does not have. Therefore, the winning percentage is a nice-looking statistic that should not be overly weighted in this decision.