View Full Version : NL CYA?
We've got the MVP threads, why not some CYA threads?
I've listed the top 10 in VORP, just to pick an easy set of Top 10 choices.
For me the battle is between Lincecum and Santana, an interesting little fight. Santana moved ahead of Lincecum (just barely) in VORP and SNLVAR (crazy high-level stat, "Support Neutral Lineup-adjusted Value Above Replacement") in his last start. But, that last start that pushed him over was one more than Lincecum got (34 starts to 33). Both with identical run support of 4.92 a game.
Does Santana playing for more of a contender help, or does Lincecum shining brightly on a team that one might expect to drag him down help him? Does neither one get it because of wins (Webb) or being on a playoff team?
NOTKyle
09-29-2008, 05:04 PM
Lincecum just because he looks like he should still be playing in the Pony League.
I'd go with Demspter since his team's actually going somewhere and he was basically the pitching MVP, but I voted for Lincecum because that's who I think will win it.
PWalk
09-29-2008, 05:35 PM
I voted other for Brad Lidge. He's been lights out all year long for the Phils and it can be said he is probably the biggest reason the Phils and not the Mets are in the postseason.
I voted other for Brad Lidge. He's been lights out all year long for the Phils and it can be said he is probably the biggest reason the Phils and not the Mets are in the postseason.
Why? Hamels has pitched 3 times the innings and was worth nearly 2 wins more. I mean, he's awesome and likely the best reliever in baseball this year, but still.
Genius
09-29-2008, 06:29 PM
See my diatribe on stats and awards in the other thread, concerning the subjectivity of my choice.
I would vote Sabathia. A starting pitcher almost single-handedly willing a team into the post-season, when he has a $140 million contract on the line? Taking the ball on three days rest three times to close out the season, and pitching as well as he had been on regular rest? Fucking phenomenal.
ninja33
09-29-2008, 07:18 PM
what genius said. although i would use that reasoning to call him the MVP. Since he won't win that, i voted for him here.
lincecum will win and thats probably the right choice.
goldsoundz
09-29-2008, 10:36 PM
lincecum, though santana put up a valiant effort to close the season
also, poor jake peavy. the reigning winner never had a shot playing for that shitty team
TheImpossibleMan
09-30-2008, 02:22 AM
Lincecum just edges out Santana, for my money. Better ERA+ and vastly better strikeout rate.
Mustard
09-30-2008, 02:33 AM
See my diatribe on stats and awards in the other thread, concerning the subjectivity of my choice.
I would vote Sabathia. A starting pitcher almost single-handedly willing a team into the post-season, when he has a $140 million contract on the line? Taking the ball on three days rest three times to close out the season, and pitching as well as he had been on regular rest? Fucking phenomenal.
I haven't paid much attention to baseball this year, but I knew at least this much to know that CC is the man.
also, poor jake peavy. the reigning winner never had a shot playing for that shitty team
Jake Peavy's a good example of what me and Genius are talking about in the other thread. 173 IP at a 2.85 ERA (even in a pitcher's park that works out to a 137 ERA+), 1.18 WHIP, 166/59 K/BB. Clearly not the winner, but does anyone see that as an actually bad season just because he's 10-11?
Lincecum just edges out Santana, for my money. Better ERA+ and vastly better strikeout rate.
Johan Santana: 234.3 IP, 2.53 ERA (163 ERA+), 1.148 WHIP, 206/63 K/BB (3.27)
Tim Lincecum: 227 IP, 2.62 ERA (164 ERA+), 1.172 WHIP, 265/84 K/BB (3.15)
1% better ERA+ is pretty slight to base a vote off of (I mean, Santana threw 3.4% more innings, how does that balance out?), and while Lincecum did strikeout 10.51/9 IP vs. Santana's 7.91/9, those walks clearly came back to balance that a bit (as evidenced by slightly higher WHIP and lower K/BB rate). By traditional names I guess that'd make Lincecum slightly more of a "power" arm this year (higher strikeouts, slightly less control) and Santana more "precision" (though someone getting nearly 8 Ks every 9 innings is hardly a 'precision' guy in general).
TheImpossibleMan
09-30-2008, 01:29 PM
Well there are almost no top pitchers who sustain their excellence with low K/9 rates, so really 6.5 Ks/9 is the threshold for "precision". If you're at 8 K/9 then I think you qualify as an 'in between' power/precision guy, when compared to the top pitchers.
Dempster, because he will prove his worth in the postseason
Well there are almost no top pitchers who sustain their excellence with low K/9 rates, so really 6.5 Ks/9 is the threshold for "precision". If you're at 8 K/9 then I think you qualify as an 'in between' power/precision guy, when compared to the top pitchers.
My point was simply that Lincecum's raw strikeout ability is tempered by his lesser control.
goldsoundz
09-30-2008, 06:10 PM
Jake Peavy's a good example of what me and Genius are talking about in the other thread. 173 IP at a 2.85 ERA (even in a pitcher's park that works out to a 137 ERA+), 1.18 WHIP, 166/59 K/BB. Clearly not the winner, but does anyone see that as an actually bad season just because he's 10-11?
people put too much emphasis on w-l records these days. with starters pitching less on strict pitchcounts, more innings are going to the bullpen making the stat less relevant. i'm glad lincecum is the favorite over webb even though he won 22.
TheImpossibleMan
10-28-2008, 02:55 PM
I'm voting Lidge because he has the best Win Probability Added of any NL pitcher, by quite a bit. He got a bit lucky but he had the most "clutch" season of any reliever or pitcher in the NL.
Lidge was the best reliever in baseball, but I still have a tough time saying he deserves the award over Lincecum or even Santana
TheImpossibleMan
10-28-2008, 03:03 PM
Lidge was the best reliever in baseball, but I still have a tough time saying he deserves the award over Lincecum or even Santana
For once, I agree with the old-timey Joe Morgan crowd. He went 41 for 41 in save chances, had the best WPA of any NL pitcher, and came through in every clutch situation for a team that only just won its division and needed a year like that out of their closer. Lidge could have been very, very good - say, 38 out of 41 - and the Phillies would have lost the division. I've got to give it to him. I realize that "clutchness" is not a repeatable skill and often luck based, but that doesn't detract from the fact that Lidge had the most clutch year of any pitcher in the NL. So he's got my vote.
For once, I agree with the old-timey Joe Morgan crowd. He went 41 for 41 in save chances, had the best WPA of any NL pitcher, and came through in every clutch situation for a team that only just won its division and needed a year like that out of their closer. Lidge could have been very, very good - say, 38 out of 41 - and the Phillies would have lost the division. I've got to give it to him. I realize that "clutchness" is not a repeatable skill and often luck based, but that doesn't detract from the fact that Lidge had the most clutch year of any pitcher in the NL. So he's got my vote.
Well first you don't know that. A blown save is not a loss, especially for a team with that offense.
Second, this is always going to be the fundamental and unanswerable question for SABR-folks, do you reward simply value or skill? In other words, if a guy hits 200 pop-ups which means he should bat for a terrible average but by some freak set of circumstances they fall in for a high average is he a good batter? He provided the value of (lets say they all fell in) 200 hits, but should you reward that or the greater skill shown by another guy who hit a lot of line drives (even if he didn't get as many hits)? Yes Lidge provided great value for his team, but why does he get an extra reward for the runs scattering nicely?
Lidge was certainly very good, but he was not not too much better than Mariano Rivera or Joe Nathan. Heck ignore Mo because his team wasn't in it, had Joe Nathan been much worse the Twins wouldn't even have had that play-in game. Shouldn't he get equivalent Cy Young support to Lidge given the razor-thin margin of his team's success? This is the issue I have with circumstance-based reasons for giving an award. ANY player on the Phillies could be a little worse and they wouldn't be in the playoffs/WS. That can't be a reason for multiple individual awards, though, as Rollins/Howard/Utley/Victorino/Hamels/Lidge can't all be given massive credit for the tiny margin the Phillies succeeded by.
And finally still, Johan Santana. Even if you want to be a team-context voter so Lincecum's crazy awesome year for the do-nothing Giants means nothing, aren't the Mets not even close to in the race without Santana? And, in fact, had his bullpen not fucked over his awesome starts aren't the Mets in the playoffs and (given potentially different matches) maybe the Phillies aren't in the World Series?
TheImpossibleMan
10-28-2008, 08:23 PM
My arguement isn't, "Well he was really good and his team only just won so that means he deserves it." Every player on every team deserves a bit of credit (except Corey Patterson. Fuck that guy) for helping their team. My point is that he had to be perfect or his team wouldn't have made it. If had just been good, or very good, or extremely good, or great, that wouldn't have been enough. He had to be historically great for his team to make the playoffs, and he did. He had the best WPA of any NL pitcher and went 41 for 41 in saves. He was put into pressure-packed situations time and time again and got the job done. Sure, he was a little lucky, but he got the job done better than any other NL pitcher. So I'd give him the Cy Young.
mongo
10-28-2008, 08:25 PM
when in doubt, vote for a UW boy.
My arguement isn't, "Well he was really good and his team only just won so that means he deserves it." Every player on every team deserves a bit of credit (except Corey Patterson. Fuck that guy) for helping their team. My point is that he had to be perfect or his team wouldn't have made it. If had just been good, or very good, or extremely good, or great, that wouldn't have been enough. He had to be historically great for his team to make the playoffs, and he did. He had the best WPA of any NL pitcher and went 41 for 41 in saves. He was put into pressure-packed situations time and time again and got the job done. Sure, he was a little lucky, but he got the job done better than any other NL pitcher. So I'd give him the Cy Young.
Right, but he could've had the exact same year for the same team, but Chase Utley breaks his leg on opening day and the Phillies don't even really sniff the playoffs. I'm still confused how an individual award can be guided by what other players on your team do. If the Phillies won more games OR if they won fewer he wouldn't be good enough, but they won just the right amount?
TheImpossibleMan
10-28-2008, 09:56 PM
I'm just saying that it puts his performance into perspective, how impactful it was.
Chase Utley was the MVP on the Phillies, should he be the MVP?
Cole Hamels had a little more than double Lidge's VORP, shouldn't he be even-more-the-CYA?
In fact once you strip away Santana and Lincecum (the clear leaders) to get at the playoff teams you're looking at Dempster, Hamels, Sheets, and CC.
And a secondary note, of course Lidge has a high WPA, he's a reliever. That's why Fangraph breaks apart their reliever and starter boards, relievers are naturally put in only high leverage situations.
TheImpossibleMan
10-30-2008, 11:20 AM
That's my point. He pitched the most impactful 70 innings. His 70 innings are equal to 200 innings out of a starter. They break it apart, but at the end of the year Lidge added more wins to his team than any other NL pitcher.
But that's a massively unfair comparison to make. By that logic even an only pretty-good reliever stacks up amongst the greatest starters, which is actually the exact opposite of how most people feel (that a reliever need to be especially amazing, a la Gagne in 2003, to stand with the full-time starters).
Relieving is already an easier job than starting (fewer innings total and per outing), you shouldn't get even FURTHER extra credit for your fewer innings being later in the game and therefore having a bigger +/- impact on your team winning the game.
TheImpossibleMan
10-30-2008, 12:00 PM
What are you basing this on? The top relievers and top starters all have comparable WPAs; actually, the starters have a little bit higher WPA, and the relievers suffer a sharper drop off after the top, elite relievers, which is to be expected. The top three starters (Lee, Sabathia, Lincecum) all have higher WPAs than the top AL reliever (Rivera). I don't understand where you getting "an only pretty-good reliever stacks up amongst the greatest starters".
Because WPA is an imperfect stat. Maybe my statement about mediocre relievers isn't perfect either, but it's pretty widely accepted that in translating a reliever's ERA you have to tack on just under a full run to get a proper translation. Let me explain why I dislike WPA.
Lidge's 3 outs in the 9th inning last night had a total -.164 WPA for the Rays (so .164 added for him and the Phillies). Shane Victorino's two run, two out, bases loaded single in the 1st had only .157.
Are you honestly telling me you don't see what's wrong with a stat that sees scoring TWO RUNS in an unlikely situation as less valuable than a decent 9th inning? The run expectancy for an inning is usually about .55 runs (almost exactly accurate for the Phillies who scored 4.94 R/G, that works out to .54 then 8 repeating runs an inning). Beyond even the .55 average inning, lets look at the situation Victorino hit in. Using the table in "The Book" which uses 99-02 data: bases loaded, 2 out an average of .815 runs score so Victorino's single:
-Scored 2 runs
-Left the game-state as 1st and 2nd 2 out (average run value of .466)
For total run production of 2.466 which is 1.651 batting runs above the average of .815 for that situation (Fan Graphs, which probably uses slightly more recent and therefore different numbers has it at 1.66 BRAA).
Which do you see as more valuable:
-A decent 9th inning (a single and a stolen base allowed with less than 2 outs)
-2 runs, more than a run and a half above the average the situation dictated
? I'd say the runs. By BRAA Lidge's 9th inning prevented exactly half a run (using Fan Graph's #s) vs. Victorino's 1.66 runs added, yet somehow Lidge's performance was 'better'? That's just silly.
TheImpossibleMan
10-30-2008, 12:45 PM
But that shit evens out over the course of a season. Also, it has to do with leverage: 1st inning isn't high leverage because there's so much baseball left to be played. But when the ninth inning ends its over. The ninth inning is more important than the first inning.
But I definitely see what you're saying.
But that shit evens out over the course of a season. Also, it has to do with leverage: 1st inning isn't high leverage because there's so much baseball left to be played. But when the ninth inning ends its over. The ninth inning is more important than the first inning.
It evens out, but the naturally high leverage of the 9th inning gives a large advantage to a good reliever vs. a good starter who pitches primarily low leverage innings.
Clutch scores in general are just a weird thing. Lidge is well ahead of the Mo's and Marmol's of the world in raw WPA, but they lead in WPA/LI, but then Lidge has an absolutely massive "Clutch" lead (which is a stat I still don't understand). For what it's worth Brandon Webb beats out Lidge in 'Clutch' amongst the legitimate NL starter CYA candidates.
Msteg45
11-01-2008, 04:18 PM
I'd like to see Tiny Tim get it, but I have a feeling it'll go to Webb.