Porcello and the Cy Young

[Kimmi]

xFIP has real problems (an assumption about homeruns which does not seem reasonable)

 

For a season award - bWAR seems like the best place to start - since it is rooted in what actually happened. It also accounts for bulk which ERA- does not - and that has to matter.

 

I can live with that.

[moonslav59]

It is an accurate evaluation of what happened this season in terms of how well the pitcher pitched.

 

To me, it's more of a predictor of how well a pitcher should do based historical data on stats that normally lead to good performance.

 

It's making it more complicated than it has to be.

 

Great pitching is not allowing men to get on base, and when they do, to limit the amount of XBHs (SLG%). One can argue that keeping runners from scoring (having a higher LOB%) shows that a pitcher buckles down when he needs to, but the end result is allowing less runs. Now, playing in different parks, and I'm not just talking home field, and facing different opponents has to be factored in, as it is in ERA-.

 

I'm not saying ERA- is "the stat", but when you couple it with WHIP (maybe we need a WHIP-) and IP ("Bulk"), then I think you get a true sense of who did the best. Had Porcello not let up the HR and maybe lasted another inning to get the win, I think he'd be the slightly better choice. Now, it's a toss up.

 

ERA-

71 Porcello

73 Kluber

75 Sale

 

ERA+

149 Kluber

145 Porcello

125 Sale

 

WHIP

1.01 Porcello

1.03 Sale

1.06 Kluber

 

OPS Against (OBP/SLG) note: OBP>SLG

.631 Kluber (.274/.357)

.635 Porcello (.268/.367)

.642 Sale (.278/.364)

 

GS%

79% Porcello

74% Sale

69% Kluber

 

GS/IP/IP per GS

33/223.0/ 6.76 Porcello

32/215.0/ 6.72 Kluber

31/221.2/7.15 Sale

 

WAR

5.3 Sale

5.2 Porcello

5.1 Kluber

 

xFIP

3.50 Kluber

3.59 Sale

3.90 Porcello

 

Can't get much closer than this.

 

Perhaps the win-loses will tip the balance, wrongly or rightly, to Porcello.

 

Edited October 1, 2016 by moonslav59

[Dojji]

With three otherwise very close candidates, I honestly think Wins is as good a tiebreaker as you need. If any one of them could win and be deserving, the one whose pitching has led to the most number of positive decisions is just as reasonable a determinant as any other.

[moonslav59]

With three otherwise very close candidates, I honestly think Wins is as good a tiebreaker as you need. If any one of them could win and be deserving, the one whose pitching has led to the most number of positive decisions is just as reasonable a determinant as any other.

 

Team record in starts (run support):

 

Porcello 25-8 (6.83 and 9 GS'd w 3 or less/ 4 with 2 or less)

CKluber 20-12 (5.32 and 13 GS'd w 3 or less/4 w 2 or less)

C Sale 18-13 (4.71 and 13 GS'd with 3 or less/9 w 2 or less)

 

Edited October 1, 2016 by moonslav59

[Bellhorn04]

With three otherwise very close candidates, I honestly think Wins is as good a tiebreaker as you need. If any one of them could win and be deserving, the one whose pitching has led to the most number of positive decisions is just as reasonable a determinant as any other.

 

I'd like to agree but I can't. Porcello's run support has been off the charts.

[Dojji]

You surely can't count run support AGAINST Porcello. If you take Wins out of the picture, that's exactly what you're doing.

[Bellhorn04]

You surely can't count run support AGAINST Porcello. If you take Wins out of the picture, that's exactly what you're doing.

 

I disagree. Porcello's W-L record is a product of 2 things:

 

1) Excellent pitching.

2) Luck - almost 7 runs of support per game.

 

No, you can't penalize him for the run support, but you can't reward him for it either. You have to compare the quality of his pitching against Kluber & Sale & leave the W-L out of it.

[Kimmi]

To me, it's more of a predictor of how well a pitcher should do based historical data on stats that normally lead to good performance.

 

It's making it more complicated than it has to be.

 

Great pitching is not allowing men to get on base, and when they do, to limit the amount of XBHs (SLG%). One can argue that keeping runners from scoring (having a higher LOB%) shows that a pitcher buckles down when he needs to, but the end result is allowing less runs. Now, playing in different parks, and I'm not just talking home field, and facing different opponents has to be factored in, as it is in ERA-.

 

I'm not saying ERA- is "the stat", but when you couple it with WHIP (maybe we need a WHIP-) and IP ("Bulk"), then I think you get a true sense of who did the best. Had Porcello not let up the HR and maybe lasted another inning to get the win, I think he'd be the slightly better choice. Now, it's a toss up.

 

ERA-

71 Porcello

73 Kluber

75 Sale

 

ERA+

149 Kluber

145 Porcello

125 Sale

 

WHIP

1.01 Porcello

1.03 Sale

1.06 Kluber

 

OPS Against (OBP/SLG) note: OBP>SLG

.631 Kluber (.274/.357)

.635 Porcello (.268/.367)

.642 Sale (.278/.364)

 

GS%

79% Porcello

74% Sale

69% Kluber

 

GS/IP/IP per GS

33/223.0/ 6.76 Porcello

32/215.0/ 6.72 Kluber

31/221.2/7.15 Sale

 

WAR

5.3 Sale

5.2 Porcello

5.1 Kluber

 

xFIP

3.50 Kluber

3.59 Sale

3.90 Porcello

 

Can't get much closer than this.

 

Perhaps the win-loses will tip the balance, wrongly or rightly, to Porcello.

 

 

I don't have anything against any of the stats that you like to use. IMO, they are all good stats. However, if you're looking for the pitcher who had the best season, you have to try, as best as possible, to eliminate factors that are out of the pitchers control. Yes, it gets complicated, but that's why we have the stat geeks.

 

If you want a good measurement of what actually happened on the field, the consensus is that bWAR does a better job of that than fWAR. Kluber leads Porcello by a good margin there. Personally, my preference in WAR is fWAR.

 

That said, it really is pretty close.

[Kimmi]

With three otherwise very close candidates, I honestly think Wins is as good a tiebreaker as you need. If any one of them could win and be deserving, the one whose pitching has led to the most number of positive decisions is just as reasonable a determinant as any other.

 

No, no, no.

[S5Dewey]

No, no, no.

 

yes, yes, yes, because, and are you ready for this?.... it has to pass the straight-face test in the court of public opinion. In this real world we live in the people making the selections are concerned about their own credibility and they know that since the general public puts a lot of weight on wins they kmow it's not out of reason that they would too. It's called CYA.

[Maxbialystock]

Porcello does not lead the AL in ERA or K's, so I really wouldn't pick him for the Cy Young.

[moonslav59]

Porcello does not lead the AL in ERA or K's, so I really wouldn't pick him for the Cy Young.

 

ERA- adjusts ERA for park factors and strength of opponents, and Porcello does lead in that measure.

 

K's are over-rated. Always have been.

[Bellhorn04]

yes, yes, yes, because, and are you ready for this?.... it has to pass the straight-face test in the court of public opinion. In this real world we live in the people making the selections are concerned about their own credibility and they know that since the general public puts a lot of weight on wins they kmow it's not out of reason that they would too. It's called CYA.

 

That all should have changed when King Felix won the Cy Yung in 2010 with a 13-12 record and nobody complained.

[Kimmi]

yes, yes, yes, because, and are you ready for this?.... it has to pass the straight-face test in the court of public opinion. In this real world we live in the people making the selections are concerned about their own credibility and they know that since the general public puts a lot of weight on wins they kmow it's not out of reason that they would too. It's called CYA.

 

I don't disagree that the voters will strongly consider and weigh 'Wins' in their decision making process. I just disagree that they should. You want to choose the best pitcher in the league on the basis of CYA?

[Kimmi]

ERA- adjusts ERA for park factors and strength of opponents, and Porcello does lead in that measure.

 

K's are over-rated. Always have been.

 

Strongly disagree. Ks are overrated for hitters. They are not overrated for pitchers.

[Kimmi]

That all should have changed when King Felix won the Cy Yung in 2010 with a 13-12 record and nobody complained.

 

That was a huge step forward. I still remember my Yankee pals on Dem Yanks being upset with anyone going against CC for Cy Young that year.

[moonslav59]

Strongly disagree. Ks are overrated for hitters. They are not overrated for pitchers.

 

I strongly disagree. Just as high K hitters can still be great offensive players, so too can low K pitchers be great pitchers.

 

Just get the guy out.

 

I can see, if Porcello has been letting up more than his fair share of line-outs, deep fly balls or spectacular defensive plays behind him, and so being called "somewhat lucky", but I haven't seen that being the case this year.

 

BABIP

.269 Porcello

.271 Kluber

 

LD%

18.8% Porcello

19.3% Kluber

 

Yes, more K's means less work for your fielders, less chances the mess up, more chances for opponents to get a hit, but if the opponents aren't hitting the ball as hard as against the high K guy you are being compared to, and the low K guy is keeping his opponents off base more often, then I can't see how higher K's flips the narrative.

 

Opponents have a lower OBP vs Porcello. The lower LD% seems to indicate that the slightly lower (.002) BABIP is not better luck but is what should be expected.

[Kimmi]

I strongly disagree. Just as high K hitters can still be great offensive players, so too can low K pitchers be great pitchers.

 

Just get the guy out.

 

I can see, if Porcello has been letting up more than his fair share of line-outs, deep fly balls or spectacular defensive plays behind him, and so being called "somewhat lucky", but I haven't seen that being the case this year.

 

BABIP

.269 Porcello

.271 Kluber

 

LD%

18.8% Porcello

19.3% Kluber

 

Yes, more K's means less work for your fielders, less chances the mess up, more chances for opponents to get a hit, but if the opponents aren't hitting the ball as hard as against the high K guy you are being compared to, and the low K guy is keeping his opponents off base more often, then I can't see how higher K's flips the narrative.

 

Opponents have a lower OBP vs Porcello. The lower LD% seems to indicate that the slightly lower (.002) BABIP is not better luck but is what should be expected.

 

I will refer you to the article that I've linked below, because the author does a better job of explaining it than I could. Also read the comments at the end.

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/4/1/4165664/how-can-strikeouts-be-great-for-pitchers-but-not-that-bad-for-hitters

 

If you're still not buying it, we will just have to disagree on the matter.

[moonslav59]

I will refer you to the article that I've linked below, because the author does a better job of explaining it than I could. Also read the comments at the end.

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/4/1/4165664/how-can-strikeouts-be-great-for-pitchers-but-not-that-bad-for-hitters

 

If you're still not buying it, we will just have to disagree on the matter.

 

I totally get the correlation between K's and success, but it's not the only or most important correlation for success. Allowing less men on base and less XBHs is surely more important than more K's.

 

There are countless pitchers who have long histories of greatness without high K rates. It's not an either or correlation.

 

Allowing men on base (Kluber has a higher BB rate by far) has a higher correlation to runs scored than Ks.

 

Yes, Porcello let more balls be put in play, but some oft hat is because he walked less men than Kluber did. The Guardians had abe tter defense than the sox, so it's hard to argue that Porcello was helped on balls in play more than Kluber was, but it's hard to know for sure.

 

Here's a breakdown:

 

Kluber/Porcello

860 PA 890

57 BB 32

7 HBP 13

170 H 193

234 men on base 238

.274 OBP .268

.357 SLG .367

106 1B 129

39 2B 36

3 3B 5

22 HR 23

SH+SF 5

GDP 16

K 189

 

 

So, Porcello faced 890 batters and 662 made outs (.743).

Core Kluber faced 860 batters and 626 made outs (.728).

 

Porcello gets outs 1.5% more than Kluber.

 

To me, this matters more than how the outs were made, but here is how the outswe re made:

 

Porcello 662 outs

189 K outs

473 other outs (71%)

 

Kluber 626 outs

227 K outs

399 other outs (64%)

[greenwell]

Porcello does not lead the AL in ERA or K's, so I really wouldn't pick him for the Cy Young.

 

So do you think it should be Aaron Sanchez (ERA leader) or Justin Verlander (k leader)?

[greenwell]

That all should have changed when King Felix won the Cy Yung in 2010 with a 13-12 record and nobody complained.

 

That's apples to oranges. Felix was far and away the best pitcher that year. This year an argument could be made for any of the three being discussed here ignoring wins. Wins definitely tips the scale for Porcello. It's also likely these three split enough votes that Britton ends up winning it.

[moonslav59]

If Mo never got higher than #2 (the year Colon won it), i doubt any reliever will do better.

 

I think it's Kluber or Porcello. There's enough to support both winning. I doubt Sale gets many votes, so I think it's a two man race. I'm not even sure britton can get enough votes for 3rd place.

[Hugh2]

I will refer you to the article that I've linked below, because the author does a better job of explaining it than I could. Also read the comments at the end.

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/4/1/4165664/how-can-strikeouts-be-great-for-pitchers-but-not-that-bad-for-hitters

 

If you're still not buying it, we will just have to disagree on the matter.

 

Low K pitchers can be very good, but much often than not they are NOT. It is more common for a high K hitter to be good. So while I agree with Moon that low K pitchers can be effective I think it is generally true that K's are over rated for hitters but not for pitchers.

[moonslav59]

Low K pitchers can be very good, but much often than not they are NOT. It is more common for a high K hitter to be good. So while I agree with Moon that low K pitchers can be effective I think it is generally true that K's are over rated for hitters but not for pitchers.

 

My point is that although high K pitchers usually do better than low K pitchers, it doesn't mean K's equate to greatness. Great pitching is about getting guys out. When hitters do get on, it's about not letting them be HRs or XBHs. It's about limiting BBs and HBPs. It sometimes is about buckling down when men do get on base.

 

I get how a K saves a fielder from having to make a play, but the Sox are not a better fielding team than the Guardians, so Porcello was not aided by greater fielding. The fact is, he walked less hitters. He allowed less men on base than Kluber.

 

His adjusted ERA (or ERA-) was better than Kluber's.

 

I just don't see why higher K's is enough to overturn the bottom line.

[sk7326]

My point is that although high K pitchers usually do better than low K pitchers, it doesn't mean K's equate to greatness. Great pitching is about getting guys out. When hitters do get on, it's about not letting them be HRs or XBHs. It's about limiting BBs and HBPs. It sometimes is about buckling down when men do get on base.

 

I get how a K saves a fielder from having to make a play, but the Sox are not a better fielding team than the Guardians, so Porcello was not aided by greater fielding. The fact is, he walked less hitters. He allowed less men on base than Kluber.

 

His adjusted ERA (or ERA-) was better than Kluber's.

 

I just don't see why higher K's is enough to overturn the bottom line.

 

K's correlate better with those indicators too! That is the point - it is rare (not impossible, but rare) that there is world where weak contact is induced consistently while "no contact" is not. There is not a repeatable skill for pitching with baserunners on (aside from pitching out of the stretch)

 

But for some discussion on weak contact ... http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/weak-contact-and-the-american-league-cy-young-race/

 

Verlander looks particularly good - although he has always had low BABIPs.

 

I think it's fairly close by a lot of numbers - although bWAR (which is about runs allowed) has Kluber quite decisively - which is educational I think.

[jacksonianmarch]

Verlander looks to be the favorite, IMO.

2nd IP

1st (by a lot) K

1st WAR

1st WHIP

2nd ERA

[sk7326]

Verlander looks to be the favorite, IMO.

2nd IP

1st (by a lot) K

1st WAR

1st WHIP

2nd ERA

 

He made a hell of a charge for sure - a great bounceback for him.

[mvp 78]

Verlander looks to be the favorite, IMO.

2nd IP

1st (by a lot) K

1st WAR

1st WHIP

2nd ERA

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/features/cyyoung

 

ESPN has him ranked 5th. He wasn't great at the start of the season, but he's been a beast for a while now.

[jacksonianmarch]

He did it for a team that was expected to be in the basement and yet played the final weekend of the year with a chance to get into the playoffs. I don't see a downside here. Porcello has a great resume, but he is more a contact pitcher, and in years where the power pitchers are better in ERA, WHIP, etc, they should win. Porcello's only two claims over Verlander are wins (a team stat) and the fact the sox are in the playoffs (also a team stat)

[moonslav59]

Verlander looks to be the favorite, IMO.

2nd IP

1st (by a lot) K

1st WAR

1st WHIP

2nd ERA

 

My two favorite pitcher stats have always been...

 

ERA-

70 A Sanchez

71 Porcello

72 Verlander

72 Tanaka

73 Kluber

 

WHIP

1.00 Verlander

1.01 Porcello

1.04 C Sale

1.06 Kluber

1.08 Tanaka

8th 1.17 A Sanchez