Porcello and the Cy Young

[moonslav59]

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.

 

I'm not "missing the point". I understand how K's lessen the need for a fielder to help with making an out, and in general, that is likely to lead to more hits, more errors, and eventually more runs, but just because these factors normally lead to more hits, shouldn't the fact that they did not with Porcello have some sort of significance as well?

 

By the way, Kluber and Porcello have nearly identical BABip numbers:

 

Kluber .271

Porcello .265

 

One also has to look at BBs. They are fielder independent as well. If you count a BB as a single, then Kluber's OBP against is much higher than Porcello's, and we all know how OBP correlates to runs scored.

 

I'd like to see another stat posted:

 

SLG on balls in play.

 

 

BTW, I've never been a big K rate fan, even when Pedro was winning and losing Cy Youngs. Pedro's K/BB rate was astoundingly great anyways.

[moonslav59]

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

 

Yes, and Porcello's in nearly twice as good as Kluber's.

[greenwell]

FiP, BaBip in stats like these may be useful to get an understanding of how well a player is actually pitching or hitting, but Cy Young and MVP should be about actual performance, what they have done to help win games.

[sk7326]

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

 

Not really ... first of all, walks and strikeouts hardly correlate at all (among qualified ML starters, the correlation was tiny, like -0.05). K/BB implies there is a zero-sum nature to this which is not borne out by any sort of evidence.

 

Second, if not making good contact can drive positive results (evidence is there that this is true, but it's not high) - the list of players who can induce weak contact without inducing NO contact is small (and perhaps non-existent). Strikeout rate is your best evidence of dominant stuff, that your pitches work.

 

The best pitchers pitch to contact - the hitter still can't actually hit it though.

[sk7326]

FiP, BaBip in stats like these may be useful to get an understanding of how well a player is actually pitching or hitting, but Cy Young and MVP should be about actual performance, what they have done to help win games.

 

I think that is fair - and bWAR starts with actual runs allowed in real life, so that could be better for a backwards looking metric. Kluber is the runaway leader in pitcher's bWAR.

[moonslav59]

I think that is fair - and bWAR starts with actual runs allowed in real life, so that could be better for a backwards looking metric. Kluber is the runaway leader in pitcher's bWAR.

 

I'm open to being persuaded, but how is bWAR better than ERA-?

[Kimmi]

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

 

Sometimes there is a disparity. In this particular case, all 3 major versions of WAR (or WARP) favor Kluber, which IMO, makes the case for Kluber stronger.

[Kimmi]

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?

 

Ks for pitchers are important. Ks for hitters are an entirely different thing. sk explained it pretty well.

 

Either way, I agree, it's a very close race. I'd be thrilled if Porcello won it. I think he probably will.

[Bellhorn04]

Sometimes there is a disparity. In this particular case, all 3 major versions of WAR (or WARP) favor Kluber, which IMO, makes the case for Kluber stronger.

 

Yes, I'd have to agree.

 

One of the categories Porcello leads Kluber in is Quality Starts, 25 to 22.

[Kimmi]

Yes, I'd have to agree.

 

One of the categories Porcello leads Kluber in is Quality Starts, 25 to 22.

 

I was looking at Game Scores the other day.

 

Kluber leads Porcello in Average Game Score, 60.4 to 59.

 

My new pitching stat of interest is Deserved Run Average, which seems to be very comprehensive in determining how many runs a pitcher should be 'blamed' for.

[Palodios]

I was looking at Game Scores the other day.

 

Kluber leads Porcello in Average Game Score, 60.4 to 59.

 

My new pitching stat of interest is Deserved Run Average, which seems to be very comprehensive in determining how many runs a pitcher should be 'blamed' for.

 

I'm trying to wrap my head around DRA and WARP. Last I heard, David Price is leading the league in WARP, which tells me that it can't be all that accurate. It seems like it weighs strikeouts very heavily into its formula, but I can't seem to find any real formula for how the numbers are calculated.

[moonslav59]

Getting players to make outs instead of getting on base is what pitching is all about.

 

When players do get on base, limiting them to fewer XBHs is also important.

 

K's look great. They do show a pitcher's ability to totally dominate batters. Of course there is a correlation between Ks and good pitching (other data), but it is an out just as equal as a pop up or ground out.

 

I get the fact that making a fielder assist in getting the out makes measuring the effectiveness of one pitcher over another more difficult, because now you have to factor in team defense differentials, park dimensions and other aspects. However, just because it's harder to measure, doesn't mean we should diminish the fact that pitcher A gets batters out and allows less XBHs or costly hits than pitcher B, who happens to K more batters.

 

It does not always work out that because K's normally relate to better pitching that Ks should be a major indicator of a greater performance level.

 

[User Name]

Case in point: Chris Archer, Robbie Ray, David Price, and Michael Pineda.

 

But the issue is that strikeout potential is one of the main indicators of dominance. If you combine strikeout ability with good walk rates, only very rarely do you get sub-standard results, and when you do, it's usually because the pitcher is allowing a ton of hard contact. Kluber is just the opposite. Great strikeout rate, good BB rate, around league average hard contact rates, which is a recipe for the results he's actually been getting.

[greenwell]

I don't have any doubt that Porcello beats out Kluber in the Cy Young race, but I still see a strong case for Britton. His case is improved when you look at what's happened to other closers lately. The closers for essentially all of the other wild card contenders in the AL have had blown saves in the last week.

[S5Dewey]

And I thought we'd decided that closers aren't all that important!

[greenwell]

And I thought we'd decided that closers aren't all that important!

 

Normally I don't think they deserve to be in the Cy Young conversation, but the exception is a 0 blown save season. Look at the difference it would have made to a lot of teams. Detroit and Seattle would both be firmly leading the wildcard, the white sox would still be in the hunt, SF would be leading the dodgers.

[sk7326]

I'm open to being persuaded, but how is bWAR better than ERA-?

 

Runs Allowed is a better starting point than ER since Earned Runs are - to put it kindly - problematic as a measure. Also ERA- is a rate stat, and bulk actually does matter for a season award.

[sk7326]

Normally I don't think they deserve to be in the Cy Young conversation, but the exception is a 0 blown save season. Look at the difference it would have made to a lot of teams. Detroit and Seattle would both be firmly leading the wildcard, the white sox would still be in the hunt, SF would be leading the dodgers.

 

Britton has been wonderful - he has also had a lot of clean save opportunities. I could argue that Andrew Miller has been better this season among relievers. He probably should get a look in the rotation again. (Britton, not Miller)

[S5Dewey]

Normally I don't think they deserve to be in the Cy Young conversation, but the exception is a 0 blown save season. Look at the difference it would have made to a lot of teams. Detroit and Seattle would both be firmly leading the wildcard, the white sox would still be in the hunt, SF would be leading the dodgers.

 

I agree. That was a barb thrown toward another thread in which some posters were saying that relievers aren't all that important.

[sk7326]

I agree. That was a barb thrown toward another thread in which some posters were saying that relievers aren't all that important.

 

Relievers are very important - but the variability year to year is vast and they don't pitch many innings. And most of them are failed starters. And the 9th often actually isn't that important. And most closers cash in at a near 90% clip to begin with.

 

Kimbrel blew a game because he couldn't throw strikes - not because the 9th has a magic voodoo. That was an easy save situation I'd have expected any pitcher in that pen drawn from a hat to be able to cash in.

[Kimmi]

I'm trying to wrap my head around DRA and WARP. Last I heard, David Price is leading the league in WARP, which tells me that it can't be all that accurate. It seems like it weighs strikeouts very heavily into its formula, but I can't seem to find any real formula for how the numbers are calculated.

 

I'm not sure there is a 'formula' for calculating DRA. There are too many adjustments taken into account. But strikeouts for pitchers are good. Very good.

 

This article contains the 'simple' explanation of DRA. Within the article there is a link to the 'in depth' explanation of it, if you're so inclined. LOL

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=26195

[Kimmi]

Relievers are very important - but the variability year to year is vast and they don't pitch many innings. And most of them are failed starters. And the 9th often actually isn't that important. And most closers cash in at a near 90% clip to begin with.

 

Kimbrel blew a game because he couldn't throw strikes - not because the 9th has a magic voodoo. That was an easy save situation I'd have expected any pitcher in that pen drawn from a hat to be able to cash in.

 

Agreed on relievers.

[Palodios]

I'm not sure there is a 'formula' for calculating DRA. There are too many adjustments taken into account. But strikeouts for pitchers are good. Very good.

 

This article contains the 'simple' explanation of DRA. Within the article there is a link to the 'in depth' explanation of it, if you're so inclined. LOL

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=26195

I've read it, but it seems overly vague and without a concrete formula isnt possible to really understand the numbers.

 

Pineda has a 4.68 ERA this year and a 2.68 DRA. Meanwhile Porcello is the opposite. 3.2 ERA and very high DRA.

 

The difference ? It seems like it is because Pineda has a 10+ K/9, and a higher BABIP.

[moonslav59]

I've read it, but it seems overly vague and without a concrete formula isnt possible to really understand the numbers.

 

Pineda has a 4.68 ERA this year and a 2.68 DRA. Meanwhile Porcello is the opposite. 3.2 ERA and very high DRA.

 

The difference ? It seems like it is because Pineda has a 10+ K/9, and a higher BABIP.

 

I read it too, and some of it makes sense, but I agree, it still seems to weight high K pitchers more favorably.

 

On BABip, I get the reasons this can be a factor, but sometimes a BABip might be low, because the types of hit balls are weaker than someone with a higher BABip.

[Kimmi]

I've read it, but it seems overly vague and without a concrete formula isnt possible to really understand the numbers.

 

Pineda has a 4.68 ERA this year and a 2.68 DRA. Meanwhile Porcello is the opposite. 3.2 ERA and very high DRA.

 

The difference ? It seems like it is because Pineda has a 10+ K/9, and a higher BABIP.

 

I agree, it is very hard to understand all the numbers behind it. However, it has an even stronger correlation with future ERA than xFIP does.

 

I think the discrepancy in the numbers says more about the flaws in ERA than it says about any problem with DRA.

[moonslav59]

I agree, it is very hard to understand all the numbers behind it. However, it has an even stronger correlation with future ERA than xFIP does.

 

I think the discrepancy in the numbers says more about the flaws in ERA than it says about any problem with DRA.

 

I'm looking for accurate evaluation of this season for the cy young not some system that says what someone will do or should have done.

[Palodios]

After Porcello's last start, I get the feeling that Britton wins.

 

Too many of these pitchers are bunched together. Tanaka, Kluber, Verlander, Sale, Porcello and Quintana all have very similar stats. 3.10 to 3.20 ERA. 200 to 220 IP. WHIP from 1.00 to 1.10. All have 16+ wins. 5 to 6 WAR. Unless there is a big pro-win crowd out there who votes Porcello in, none of these guys truly distinguish them from eachother.

[S5Dewey]

After Porcello's last start, I get the feeling that Britton wins.

 

Too many of these pitchers are bunched together. Tanaka, Kluber, Verlander, Sale, Porcello and Quintana all have very similar stats. 3.10 to 3.20 ERA. 200 to 220 IP. WHIP from 1.00 to 1.10. All have 16+ wins. 5 to 6 WAR. Unless there is a big pro-win crowd out there who votes Porcello in, none of these guys truly distinguish them from eachother.

 

That's true, so at the end of the day wins may be the deciding factor.

[sk7326]

I agree, it is very hard to understand all the numbers behind it. However, it has an even stronger correlation with future ERA than xFIP does.

 

I think the discrepancy in the numbers says more about the flaws in ERA than it says about any problem with DRA.

 

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.

[Kimmi]

I'm looking for accurate evaluation of this season for the cy young not some system that says what someone will do or should have done.

 

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