Porcello and the Cy Young

[User Name]

Also, the AL East has been a landmine field to navigate, with two of the other teams he's facing being top-10 offenses in MLB. Kluber's divisional competition has been weaker, and he hasn't been as consistent as Porcello this season. All important factors.

[Nick]

I'm not disparaging Porcello at all when I say he's the safe pick in my opinion.

 

His volume of work for 2016 is Cy Young worthy. I would be surprised if someone else wins it.

[sk7326]

I never get why K's are viewed as highly as WHIP and ERA-. Porcello's last start wasn't as good as most others, but his FIP improves and his ERA- and WHIP got worse.

 

I get why people want a park and defense independent number, but it's just one small piece in the formula for determining who has done the best.

 

 

A strikeout is an individual accomplishment, any other out is a team one. Also - if you want a non-analytic take, missing bats is preferable with the season on the line (and the 2015 World Series showed exactly what can happen when you don't).

 

Porcello has been magnificent, and I hope he wins the award. It's a three man race and all of them are good choices.

[mvp 78]

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

 

Not sure if this is really accurate tho.

[sk7326]

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

 

Not sure if this is really accurate tho.

 

Well it is modeling factors which have correlated with past Cys. So the methodology is sound, and we know that pitcher wins have historically meant a ton. I'd be surprised if he didn't win it.

[User Name]

Jon Lester ain't beating Mad Max for the NL Cy.

[sk7326]

Jon Lester ain't beating Mad Max for the NL Cy.

 

He shouldn't (those 20 extra innings of value!) - but the Cubs narrative will be very very strong.

[Nick]

Well it is modeling factors which have correlated with past Cys. So the methodology is sound, and we know that pitcher wins have historically meant a ton. I'd be surprised if he didn't win it.

 

Great to see that we have two 'work horse' starters in Price and Porcello (200+ innings). I'm hoping E Rod joins the two next year. He is maturing in front of our eyes.

[greenwell]

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

 

Not sure if this is really accurate tho.

 

I think it's pretty good. If you use the dropdown to look at previous years you can see it was correct for every cy young award from 2011-2015, except for Dallas Keuschel last year, who was a very close second according to the Cy predictor.

In 2010 Felix Hernandez was an upset, but that was because he was so dominant that year they ignored wins and team finish altogether.

[User Name]

Scherzer's going to end up with 20+ IP and 70+ K over Lester. ERA alone can't overcome that.

[Kimmi]

Kluber leads all pitchers in bWAR - 6.5 to Porcello's 5.1.

 

He leads all AL pitchers in fWAR - 5.2 to Porcello's 5.1.

 

He is 4th (behind Sale, Price, and Hamels) among AL pitchers in BP's PWARP with 5.94 to Porcello's 4.71.

 

Kluber's Deserved Run Average, which takes into account such things as ball parks and strength of opponent, is 2.90 to Porcello's 3.46.

 

The numbers say that Kluber has pitched better than Porcello this season. Unlike the MVP, we are looking for who pitched the 'best', not who was the most valuable.

[Nick]

Kluber leads all pitchers in bWAR - 6.5 to Porcello's 5.1.

 

He leads all AL pitchers in fWAR - 5.2 to Porcello's 5.1.

 

He is 4th (behind Sale, Price, and Hamels) among AL pitchers in BP's PWARP with 5.94 to Porcello's 4.71.

 

Kluber's Deserved Run Average, which takes into account such things as ball parks and strength of opponent, is 2.90 to Porcello's 3.46.

 

The numbers say that Kluber has pitched better than Porcello this season. Unlike the MVP, we are looking for who pitched the 'best', not who was the most valuable.

 

If Cy Young award was based soley on measurable numbers....bWAR, fWAR, PWARP, Deserved Run Average, WHY IN THE f*** DO WE EVEN HAVE PEOPLE

VOTE ON IT? Just give the damn thing to Kluber.

[S5Dewey]

If Cy Young award was based soley on measurable numbers....bWAR, fWAR, PWARP, Deserved Run Average, WHY IN THE f*** DO WE EVEN HAVE PEOPLE

VOTE ON IT? Just give the damn thing to Kluber.

 

What we need to do next is assign values to intangibles and semi-tangibles like clubhouse influence and a catcher's ability to frame pitches. We can then incorporate them into WAR to determine a player's TRUE VALUE.

 

The next step is to do away with All-Star voting, instead granting All-Star status to the player in each position with the highest New And Improved War Ranking. Players will be paid according to their NAIWR with bonuses for making the All-Star team.

 

At the end of the 162 game season we can plug each variable in the NAIWR for each player on the teams that make the playoffs into a computer and the computer will tell us not only who wins the game, but also develop a play-by-play that can either be animated so it can be watched or we can read it at our own convenience.

 

Now THAT's baseball!! And as Bill Jame's character said on The Simpsons, It'll be about as much fun as doing your taxes!

[Kimmi]

If Cy Young award was based soley on measurable numbers....bWAR, fWAR, PWARP, Deserved Run Average, WHY IN THE f*** DO WE EVEN HAVE PEOPLE

VOTE ON IT? Just give the damn thing to Kluber.

 

As I said, the Cy Young is an award for the pitcher who has had the best season. It's not for the pitcher who has helped his team the most, or the pitcher who has been the most valuable. There is a lot of room for interpretation for the latter. Not so much when you're looking for the best.

 

If there were not people voting on it, 'they' would get it right more often, though the Cy Young award has not been terrible in that respect.

 

Once a sabermetric component was added to the Gold Glove voting, those awards improved ten-fold.

[Kimmi]

What we need to do next is assign values to intangibles and semi-tangibles like clubhouse influence and a catcher's ability to frame pitches. We can then incorporate them into WAR to determine a player's TRUE VALUE.

 

The next step is to do away with All-Star voting, instead granting All-Star status to the player in each position with the highest New And Improved War Ranking. Players will be paid according to their NAIWR with bonuses for making the All-Star team.

 

At the end of the 162 game season we can plug each variable in the NAIWR for each player on the teams that make the playoffs into a computer and the computer will tell us not only who wins the game, but also develop a play-by-play that can either be animated so it can be watched or we can read it at our own convenience.

 

Now THAT's baseball!! And as Bill Jame's character said on The Simpsons, It'll be about as much fun as doing your taxes!

 

There's a huge difference between the actual game taking place on the field versus assessing players afterwards in terms of using stats.

 

When I'm watching a game, the thought of WAR never enters my mind. However, when I'm comparing and assessing players after the fact, you're doggone right I'm going to use it, along with any other meaningful stat I can get my hands on. It would be remiss not to. And to me, looking at the stats is extremely enjoyable.

 

Also, the All-Star voting is a joke, if you're really looking for a game of 'all stars'.

[moonslav59]

Kluber leads all pitchers in bWAR - 6.5 to Porcello's 5.1.

 

He leads all AL pitchers in fWAR - 5.2 to Porcello's 5.1.

 

He is 4th (behind Sale, Price, and Hamels) among AL pitchers in BP's PWARP with 5.94 to Porcello's 4.71.

 

Kluber's Deserved Run Average, which takes into account such things as ball parks and strength of opponent, is 2.90 to Porcello's 3.46.

 

The numbers say that Kluber has pitched better than Porcello this season. Unlike the MVP, we are looking for who pitched the 'best', not who was the most valuable.

 

ERA- takes into account park and opponent. Porcello leads Kluber.

[Spudboy]

Kluber leads all pitchers in bWAR - 6.5 to Porcello's 5.1.

 

He leads all AL pitchers in fWAR - 5.2 to Porcello's 5.1.

 

He is 4th (behind Sale, Price, and Hamels) among AL pitchers in BP's PWARP with 5.94 to Porcello's 4.71.

 

Kluber's Deserved Run Average, which takes into account such things as ball parks and strength of opponent, is 2.90 to Porcello's 3.46.

 

The numbers say that Kluber has pitched better than Porcello this season. Unlike the MVP, we are looking for who pitched the 'best', not who was the most valuable.

 

How about posting all relevant stats so we can see the entire picture?

 

I think that I smell the essence of almonds.

[sk7326]

Scherzer's going to end up with 20+ IP and 70+ K over Lester. ERA alone can't overcome that.

 

Scherzer's biggest competition is probably the kid - for obvious reasons. On the bright side, Fernandez DID lead the ML in fWAR. In reality, too few innings - but the innings were of such significantly higher quality than anybody else's.

[Kimmi]

ERA- takes into account park and opponent. Porcello leads Kluber.

 

That Porcello leads Kluber in ERA- is a fair point in Porcello's favor.

[Kimmi]

How about posting all relevant stats so we can see the entire picture?

 

I think that I smell the essence of almonds.

 

What relevant stats would you like to see?

 

IMO, WAR captures the essence of the relevant stats.

[Bellhorn04]

What relevant stats would you like to see?

 

IMO, WAR captures the essence of the relevant stats.

 

The problem with WAR for pitchers is the frequent disparity in the 2 systems.

[moonslav59]

What relevant stats would you like to see?

 

IMO, WAR captures the essence of the relevant stats.

 

To me, it's too weighted with FIP (K-rates). There are damn good pitchers who get more guys out, give up less HRs and less runs, but just don't come close to leading the league in Ks. An out is an out.

 

I get why people want to value stats that don't rely on park factors and team defense, but to me, it's not as important as ERA-, OPs against and WHIP. Those three stats trump WAR. When the vote for MVP (best non pitcher award), does anyone look at Ks? No, they look at OPS, HRs, OBP, BA, RBIs, SLG but hardly ever Ks. Then, why is it so important for pitchers?

 

This isn't something I'm inventing or morphing into. I've always valued ERA-, WHIP and OPS against more than ERA, K rates and WAR.

 

ERA-

70 Porcello

73 Kluber

 

WHIP

0.99 Porcello

1.06 Kluber

 

OPS Against

.628 Porcello (.628H/.628A and .659 v RHB/.600 v LHB)

.631 Kluber (.666H/.592A and .615 v RHB/.648 v RHB)

 

OPS Against High Leverage

.589 Kluber

.598 Porcello

 

ERA+

151 Kluber

147 Porcello

 

The one K-related stat I pay attention to is K/BB and Porcello blows Kluber away 6.10 to 3.98.

 

Sure, K's are fun. A pitcher looks dominating. The batter looks meek and mild, but allowing less hit, less XBHs, less walks and less runs is what great pitching is really about.

 

All in all, it's pretty darn close.

 

 

[sk7326]

To me, it's too weighted with FIP (K-rates). There are damn good pitchers who get more guys out, give up less HRs and less runs, but just don't come close to leading the league in Ks. An out is an out.

 

I get why people want to value stats that don't rely on park factors and team defense, but to me, it's not as important as ERA-, OPs against and WHIP. Those three stats trump WAR. When the vote for MVP (best non pitcher award), does anyone look at Ks? No, they look at OPS, HRs, OBP, BA, RBIs, SLG but hardly ever Ks. Then, why is it so important for pitchers?

 

This isn't something I'm inventing or morphing into. I've always valued ERA-, WHIP and OPS against more than ERA, K rates and WAR.

 

ERA-

70 Porcello

73 Kluber

 

WHIP

0.99 Porcello

1.06 Kluber

 

OPS Against

.628 Porcello (.628H/.628A and .659 v RHB/.600 v LHB)

.631 Kluber (.666H/.592A and .615 v RHB/.648 v RHB)

 

OPS Against High Leverage

.589 Kluber

.598 Porcello

 

ERA+

151 Kluber

147 Porcello

 

The one K-related stat I pay attention to is K/BB and Porcello blows Kluber away 6.10 to 3.98.

 

Sure, K's are fun. A pitcher looks dominating. The batter looks meek and mild, but allowing less hit, less XBHs, less walks and less runs is what great pitching is really about.

 

All in all, it's pretty darn close.

 

 

 

No, K's mean a pitcher IS dominating ... the reason K's for hitters matters less is that from the hitter's view it is them against the defense ... quickly exporting fangraphs data on this stuff

 

K-BB rate correlates at a -.411 rate with runs allowed

K rate is -.51625

 

So the K% (which is the right stat to go with here, not K or BB per 9) tracks better. K rate correlates to WHIP even better (-.56025). Strikeouts - in a large sample, in the long run - is your most likely path to the other stuff (allowing baserunners which goes to allowing runs)

 

OPS is the a terrific training wheel stat if you don't want to deal with advanced stuff - but of course it is profoundly flawed. (mismatched denominators, mismatched scale, severely underrating half of it)

 

Runs allowed is all that matters - the most likely way to get there is the guy who does not allow baserunners. The guy who does that most likely is striking people out.

 

I think it's a toss up between Sale, Kluber and Porcello - and Porcello will probably win (even if some of the voters will use the wrong logic - Pedroia 2008 MVP).

[sk7326]

The problem with WAR for pitchers is the frequent disparity in the 2 systems.

 

It is useful to look at them both ... here is a good explanation of the differences: http://www.crawfishboxes.com/2012/8/28/3273844/which-war-works-best-pitching-version

 

There is a case for bWAR - because you are dealing with actual runs allowed - and you are trying to evaluate who delivered the most value in the past. Kluber is significantly in the lead there.

 

fWAR is better for predictive value

[moonslav59]

No, K's mean a pitcher IS dominating ... the reason K's for hitters matters less is that from the hitter's view it is them against the defense ... quickly exporting fangraphs data on this stuff

 

K-BB rate correlates at a -.411 rate with runs allowed

K rate is -.51625

 

So the K% (which is the right stat to go with here, not K or BB per 9) tracks better. K rate correlates to WHIP even better (-.56025). Strikeouts - in a large sample, in the long run - is your most likely path to the other stuff (allowing baserunners which goes to allowing runs)

 

OPS is the a terrific training wheel stat if you don't want to deal with advanced stuff - but of course it is profoundly flawed. (mismatched denominators, mismatched scale, severely underrating half of it)

 

Runs allowed is all that matters - the most likely way to get there is the guy who does not allow baserunners. The guy who does that most likely is striking people out.

 

I think it's a toss up between Sale, Kluber and Porcello - and Porcello will probably win (even if some of the voters will use the wrong logic - Pedroia 2008 MVP).

 

So, why is Porcello's WHIP lower than Kluber's even though he has a much lower K rate?

 

Could it be because he pitched better? That when players did hit him, they hit it weaker. It must have been significantly weaker or way less BB/9, since even though more balls were put in play, he allowed less men on base.

 

If K's are a sign of dominance, then BB's should be a sign of weakness, and Kluber walks significantly more.

[moonslav59]

So, why is Porcello's WHIP lower than Kluber's even though he has a much lower K rate?

 

Could it be because he pitched better? That when players did hit him, they hit it weaker. It must have been significantly weaker or way less BB/9, since even though more balls were put in play, he allowed less men on base.

 

If K's are a sign of dominance, then BB's should be a sign of weakness, and Kluber walks significantly more.

 

Just because Ks normally correlate to low WHIP and "dominance" does not mean you have to be a high K guy to be dominant.

[kenmeister]

Just because Ks normally correlate to low WHIP and "dominance" does not mean you have to be a high K guy to be dominant.

 

I wouldn't mind K's if there were equally important stats to track fly ball outs and ground ball outs. Who is the leader in ground ball outs? Might be Porcello.

[User Name]

So, why is Porcello's WHIP lower than Kluber's even though he has a much lower K rate?

 

Could it be because he pitched better? That when players did hit him, they hit it weaker. It must have been significantly weaker or way less BB/9, since even though more balls were put in play, he allowed less men on base.

 

If K's are a sign of dominance, then BB's should be a sign of weakness, and Kluber walks significantly more.

 

You're missing the point. Pitching to contact entails defense and BABIP luck, while a high strikeout volume does not. It's a simple and indisputable fact. That does not mean a pitcher is better than another pitcher because he K's more batters, but strikeouts correlate to/are generally more conductive to dominance, although correlation =/= causation as we all know.

 

The funny part is, a lot of you now devaluing strikeouts probably had the exact opposite argument in 2002 when Zito won the Cy over Pedro, but whatever.

[moonslav59]

K%

Kluber 26%

Porcello 21%

 

GB%

Porcello 44%

Kluber 44%

 

FB%

Porcello 37%

Kluber 36%

 

LD%

Kluber 19.3%

Porcello 18.8%

 

Hard hit%

Porcello 30%

Kluber 28%

 

Hard+ Med hit%

Porcello 83%

Kluber 80%

 

IFFB%

Porcello 9%

Kluber 6%

 

GB/FB

Kluber 1.23

Porcello1.17

 

Since Kluber K's players 5% more of the time than Porcello, more balls are put in play by Porcello, so even with a lower LD% than Kluber, Porcello might allow more line drives.

 

The big difference to me is the BB%. Kluber's is nearly double Porcello's (2.39 to 1.24), so basically Kluber walks 1 more guy every 100 batters faced. He K's 5 more, so about 4 more balls per 100 are pout into play from Porcello.

 

The fact that Porcello has a lower WHIP and OPS against shows that despite the 5 less K's per 100, he's allowing less men on base and at a lower OPS. What more can you ask? Plus, these facts have led to less runs allowed and more wins.

 

It is close, but I still think Porcello has had a better season.

 

[Bellhorn04]

K/BB is a big one, is it not?