Crazy Cy Young voting

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by CubsManager

But guys, WAR is a ridiculously subjective, and thus, meaningless stat. In fact It's so subjective that no one can agree on exactly how to calculate it. I also have a lot of trouble with a state being based on some phantom "replacement player."

That's not what subjective means. If you were comparing players across two different calculations for WAR, then yes, that would be subjective. But if you are comparing them using the same WAR calculation, as OOTP does, then it is an objective comparison. The rules for calculating WAR are just as internally consistent as the rules for calculating ERA.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by CubsManager

But guys, WAR is a ridiculously subjective, and thus, meaningless stat. In fact It's so subjective that no one can agree on exactly how to calculate it. I also have a lot of trouble with a state being based on some phantom "replacement player."

And here's proof. If you look at two starters with a 2.67 ERA and one goes 23 - 5 and the other goes 11 - 11 - both for teams that finished first in their division, it's clear who the more valuable pitcher is.

Well, win-loss certainly isn't exact science either is it? What if 23-5 had run support of 4.5 per game and 11-11- had run support of 2.5 per game?

I'm with RchW on this one, let's not fix what isn't broke. The manual vote is there for a reason.

[CubsManager]

DCG12, So what you're essentially saying is, it was the pitchers fault for being on a better team? Yes the Cubs were number one in the NL in defensive efficiency and they did have the best record, but the Dodgers weren't far behind at 99 - 63.

Stroman lead the NL in starts, innings pitched, and he gave up less hits per inning than Kershaw. Their WHIP was just .01 apart. There has to be a value in a pitcher that throws 240 innings that WAR ain't measuring.

[ThePretender]

Real life Drew Hutchison is 9-2 with a 5+ ERA. That should tell you everything you need to know about the value of W/L records.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by CubsManager

DCG12, So what you're essentially saying is, it was the pitchers fault for being on a better team? Yes the Cubs were number one in the NL in defensive efficiency and they did have the best record, but the Dodgers weren't far behind at 99 - 63.

Stroman lead the NL in starts, innings pitched, and he gave up less hits per inning than Kershaw. Their WHIP was just .01 apart. There has to be a value in a pitcher that throws 240 innings that WAR ain't measuring.

Are you telling me that your eyes don't see Bryce Harper and Mike Trout as arguably the best hitters in Baseball right now? What about Josh Donaldson?

I know this is a pitching thread but WAR only reinforces what your eyes can see if you look carefully.

Same with pitcher WAR. Tell me who doesn't belong.

[DCG12]

Originally Posted by CubsManager

DCG12, So what you're essentially saying is, it was the pitchers fault for being on a better team? Yes the Cubs were number one in the NL in defensive efficiency and they did have the best record, but the Dodgers weren't far behind at 99 - 63.

Stroman lead the NL in starts, innings pitched, and he gave up less hits per inning than Kershaw. Their WHIP was just .01 apart. There has to be a value in a pitcher that throws 240 innings that WAR ain't measuring.

Don't put words in my mouth. What I was pointing out is that you can't just say that a 23 win pitcher is automatically more valuable than the 11 win guy without looking deeper. It's possible the 23 win guy won some games that any other pitcher could have won i.e. 15-4 blowout for example.

As an example (this came up during last weeks Sox/Yanks series) the Yankees have a guy Nathan Eovaldi who has the best record on the team at 9-2 but the Yanks score almost 8 runs a game for him. So he has a gaudy record despite his 4.50 ERA and 1.50 WHIP. I'm just saying look deeper thab the wins.

You may not like WAR but it does still compare the pitchers actual contribution beyond just having some luck on his side that resulted in more wins

Now again I'm not saying that your guy shouldn't have won but only that the game looks at other things besides wins.

Oh and I understand being a little frustrated with your hometown guy not winning as it has happened to me before

[IsaacR]

W-L is only good for comparing guys on the same team.

That said, I think Stroman should've won the Cy Young hands down, from what I've read. With the same ERA and a better W-L record (and the fact that OOTP is supposed to be realistic) there's no way Stroman doesn't win the award IRL, so I don't think Kershaw should've finished any higher than third.?

While WAR has it's uses, I think OOTP is too reliant on a stat that fluctuates and doesn't reflect everything (though it tries to.) I wouldn't say Trout and (I choke on this) Harper aren't two of the better players in the game, but I have a hard time believing Cain is having a better season than Posey, or that Gibson is the 7th best pitcher this year, just because one stat says so. And Cabrera was the best player in the game his Triple Crown season, not Trout.
All in all, the more stats OOTP uses (and less reliant on a single stat), the more accurate these awards will be. Until then, I'll keep picking my awards myself.

[RchW]

Strawman alert!. I don't know anyone who claims WAR reflects everything. Tell me another stat or set of stats that does better than WAR as a general ranking of player effectiveness. I'd be happy to include that too.

I'm curious why a fluctuating stat is a bad thing. Does that make WHIP OBP and OPS equally bad? What non-fluctuating stat works better? If a stat doesn't fluctuate how can you tell a good player from a bad player, or better said a less good player.

Slightly confused.

[ThePretender]

Originally Posted by IsaacR

W-L is only good for comparing guys on the same team.

That said, I think Stroman should've won the Cy Young hands down, from what I've read. With the same ERA and a better W-L record (and the fact that OOTP is supposed to be realistic) there's no way Stroman doesn't win the award IRL, so I don't think Kershaw should've finished any higher than third.?

While WAR has it's uses, I think OOTP is too reliant on a stat that fluctuates and doesn't reflect everything (though it tries to.) I wouldn't say Trout and (I choke on this) Harper aren't two of the better players in the game, but I have a hard time believing Cain is having a better season than Posey, or that Gibson is the 7th best pitcher this year, just because one stat says so. And Cabrera was the best player in the game his Triple Crown season, not Trout.
All in all, the more stats OOTP uses (and less reliant on a single stat), the more accurate these awards will be. Until then, I'll keep picking my awards myself.

Eh, W/L isn't even good for comparing on the same team. You can have a stellar season and just work out to have poor run support, and even with good numbers still have an awful W/L record. It's just a silly stat.

As far as Lorenzo Cain, the fact his WAR is so high is more support in favour of WAR, not against it. He plays in a tough park to hit in, yet he's the 17th best hitter in the league when you adjust for the fact he plays half his games in KC - a 146 wRC+ is amazing. You combine that with elite level defence at an up the middle position, and it's no surprise he's doing well via WAR.

Kyle Gibson is not the 7th best SP in the league.

Cabrera wasn't the best player the year he won the triple crown, and that's not even his best offensive season. He was better in 2011 and 2013.

[IsaacR]

Originally Posted by RchW

Strawman alert!. I don't know anyone who claims WAR reflects everything. Tell me another stat or set of stats that does better than WAR as a general ranking of player effectiveness. I'd be happy to include that too.

I'm curious why a fluctuating stat is a bad thing. Does that make WHIP OBP and OPS equally bad? What non-fluctuating stat works better? If a stat doesn't fluctuate how can you tell a good player from a bad player, or better said a less good player.

Slightly confused.

It doesn't reflect everything, but it does it's best to encompass everything (offense, defense, pitching). The problem is that it overlooks a lot, namely Triple Crown stats, which imo are still the best and most accurate stats.


I prefer cumulative stats over fluctuating stats. If one guy hits 30 bombs while another guy hit 25, I can say that the 30 bomb guy (unless it's in Coors field) had a better power season. If a guy had a .340 OBP and another had a .330, you can't really tell.


I'm not a huge sabermetrics guy. My outlook is semi-traditional. I think W-L, while not super helpful, is a little bit overlooked. I don't like FIP (because some guys will continually outpitch their FIP) but prefer BABIP (since that describes pure luck). I also don't care for summary stats like WAR and VORP, preferring to look at each individual stat that describes a particular tool. (Average, hits - contact, HR, Doubles, slugging, ISO - power, OBP, Walks, Ks - Eye, etc.)


To return to the main topic (and not get carried away with the WAR argument) can we have screenshots of each guy's stat line (Stroman, Kershaw, Giles, Latos, plus any others that may be candidates) and not just have W-L, ERA, and WAR in front of us?

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by CubsManager

DCG12, So what you're essentially saying is, it was the pitchers fault for being on a better team? Yes the Cubs were number one in the NL in defensive efficiency and they did have the best record, but the Dodgers weren't far behind at 99 - 63.

Stroman lead the NL in starts, innings pitched, and he gave up less hits per inning than Kershaw. Their WHIP was just .01 apart. There has to be a value in a pitcher that throws 240 innings that WAR ain't measuring.

Why should Kershaw be penalized for being on a bad team? If statistically he is one of the best in the league, and WAR confirms that, why should he not be an option to win the Cy Young?


What if Kershaw were on the Cubs and Stroman was on the Dodgers? Does Stroman still win 23? Does Kershaw still go 11-11?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by IsaacR

It doesn't reflect everything, but it does it's best to encompass everything (offense, defense, pitching). The problem is that it overlooks a lot, namely Triple Crown stats, which imo are still the best and most accurate stats.

You're entitled to that opinion but I'd say that even most non-stat heads generally accept that batting average, home runs and RBI, tell us very little about actual player value. Same thing applies to pitcher wins and ERA to some extent.

I'm on topic in this thread. There is no bug.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by IsaacR

To return to the main topic (and not get carried away with the WAR argument) can we have screenshots of each guy's stat line (Stroman, Kershaw, Giles, Latos, plus any others that may be candidates) and not just have W-L, ERA, and WAR in front of us?

Yes, I'd like to see this too. I suspect that Kershaw may have had a quick hook and I'd really like to see the run support comparison.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by david limbaugh

Another problem is that the little text that pops up tells me that Toad Ramsey won the triple crown of pitching one season - he only lead the league in wins - and is not credited with the triple crown in his history...

I would have to check some player profiles to be sure but I know pitching Triple Crowns are now kept track of in the Triple Crown page. Are batting Triple Crowns kept track of on a players profile?

[The Game]

Originally Posted by CubsManager

But guys, WAR is a ridiculously subjective, and thus, meaningless stat. In fact It's so subjective that no one can agree on exactly how to calculate it. I also have a lot of trouble with a state being based on some phantom "replacement player."

And here's proof. If you look at two starters with a 2.67 ERA and one goes 23 - 5 and the other goes 11 - 11 - both for teams that finished first in their division, it's clear who the more valuable pitcher is.

Edit: i have changed my stance on WAR over the last 2 years, mostly in thanks to actionjackson.

As for the 2nd i disagree. Defense & bullpen made Stroman the better pitcher. Maybe Kershaw has a bad pen and bad defense. What are their FIP, BABIP, OPPAVG, K, BB , etc?
Dallas Kuechel is on a better team then Sale and minus today Sale might still win the CYA.
I like what Tyler said about how you would like awards to be voted on and have it change over time.

[madJ]

Originally Posted by CubsManager

DCG12, So what you're essentially saying is, it was the pitchers fault for being on a better team? Yes the Cubs were number one in the NL in defensive efficiency and they did have the best record, but the Dodgers weren't far behind at 99 - 63.

Stroman lead the NL in starts, innings pitched, and he gave up less hits per inning than Kershaw. Their WHIP was just .01 apart. There has to be a value in a pitcher that throws 240 innings that WAR ain't measuring.

So with essentially the same WHIP Stroman gave up less hits? That means what he didn't give up as hits he gave up as walks. Walks are completely the pitcher's fault. Hits he can't do much about if his defense sucks. So one more point in favor of Kershaw winning the Cy Young in your game.

[rstoomeyii]

I didnt see anything anywhere about strike outs. What are we looking at for totals and K/9? If Kershaw is blowing guys away and Stroman is getting more guys out with his defense that definitely favors Kersh (and vice versa)

[1908_Cubs]

Originally Posted by CubsManager

But guys, WAR is a ridiculously subjective, and thus, meaningless stat. In fact It's so subjective that no one can agree on exactly how to calculate it. I also have a lot of trouble with a state being based on some phantom "replacement player."

And here's proof. If you look at two starters with a 2.67 ERA and one goes 23 - 5 and the other goes 11 - 11 - both for teams that finished first in their division, it's clear who the more valuable pitcher is.

That shows a fairly poor and rudimentary understanding of what WAR is. Even if you don't want to accept the phantom replacement player, viewing WAR as an overall value based statistic has strong merit. A 2 win player (below that is generally a bench-type player), for example, usually denotes starting caliber, a 4-6 win player an all-star, and 6+ as an elite player. View it as a ranking system, then, not as a definitive value over a phantom-mystery guy. Don't get wrapped up in exactness, either. The difference between, say, 3.4 wins and 3.6 wins is likely negligible. Full wins are certainly worthwhile, but too many people get into pissing matches over fractions of fractions of a win that just...well...don't matter.

Secondly, WAR is certainly not subjective. It's very much objective in it's creation. fWAR runs primarily using FIP/xFIP as it's basis (exact weights for fWAR are unknown, but we know the basic base). FIP and xFIP use K/9 (how many you strike out), BB/9 (walk) and HR/9 (home runs given up) as their fundamental basis, things that we know for sure a pitcher can control (as hits aren't exactly in a pitcher's control: very much of this depends on defensive positioning and your defender's value). Now, your view of bWAR vs fWAR, for example, and which you like better could very well be subjective, but in it's bare-fundamentals, WAR is derived from objective numbers. We know exactly if you strike someone out or not. That's not subjective.

W-L/ERA are very old, and dated statistics in our new world of statistical understanding. WAR doesn't have to be the end-all-be-all statistic. Things like FIP, xFIP, K/BB, SIERA, HR/FB%, low/med/high contact%...all the great peripherals we have access to, certainly help to clarify the picture. But basing anything a pitcher does on things like W-L (which is as much of a process of your offense and bullpen) and ERA (which has a lot to do with your team defense) has long been replaced by bigger and better stats.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by RchW

A 2.3 difference in WAR is significant. I for one would not want this "fixed" because nothing is wrong. Wins and losses do not always reflect pitcher performance.

This.

It is working as intended.

[victims_sanction]

Wanted to get your guys' opinion on a vote that just happened in my league. I'm ecstatic cause my guy ended up winning it, but wanted to know if you guys thought he was really the best candidate.

The winner (2.92 FIP):


2nd Place (3.01 FIP):


3rd Place (3.48 FIP)


Kershaw (3.07 FIP)



Was a really interesting season. At the All-Star break it seemed destined that Kershaw was winning it as he was having an amazing season and had 15 wins at the All-Star break. After the break though he fell off quite a bit. Holmes on the other hand had the opposite trajectory and got really strong around August/September. Interesting season/vote. Wanted to know who you guys would've voted for. If you need more stats let me know (I can't seem to find run support).

Holmes does have the lowest FIP, but also didn't pitch nearly as many innings. Also seems weird Kershaw didn't make the top 3 over Erlin.