Porcello and the Cy Young

[sk7326]

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

 

one is a good rate stat, the other a fantasy one ... the bulk does matter for an award which is an issue here

[moonslav59]

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)

 

He's slightly better in ERA-

He's significantly better in BB/K

5.91 Porcello

5.85 Tomlin

5.18 C Sale

4.58 Tanaka

4.56 Price

4.46 Verlander

3.98 Kluber

[Kimmi]

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.

 

That's pretty much the gist of it in a nutshell.

[moonslav59]

Just because high Ks usually translates into better pitching doesn't mean it should be a major measuring stick of greatness.

 

Getting people out more often and not allowing XBHs when they do get on base is really what great pitching is all about.

 

Since 1977, there are 221 starters with 1500+ IP. The leaders in ERA- and WHIP are mostly high K guys, but there are enough low K guys to prove that you don't have to strike guys out to not allow men on base or men to score.

 

ERA- (K/9)

63 Kershaw (9.8)

67 Pedro (10.0)

70 Clemens (8.6)

73 Santana (8.8)

75 Johnson (10.6)

*76 Maddux (6.1)

*76 Halladay (6.9)

*78 Brown (6.6)

78 Oswalt (7.4)

 

#14 80 Saberhagen (6.1)

#15 80 J Tudor (4.9)

#19 82 J Key (5.3)

#24 82 Appier (6.9)

#26 83 D Stieb (5.2)

#29 83 Hudson (5.9)

#30 84 Guidry (6.6)

 

That's 10 in the top 30 with a K rate less than 7.0.

 

That's significant enough to prove that K's are not needed to produce great bottom lines. Nolan Ryan and Hideo Nomo K'd a bunch of people, but they also walked too many. Ryan had a 1.22 WHIP and 88 ERA-. Nomo had a 1.35 WHIP and 101 ERA-. Clearly WHIP has a higher correlation to great pitching than K's.

 

It's not a coincidence that the high K guys and the low K guys that are successful both have great WHIP.

 

WHIP Pitcher ERA-

1.01 Kershaw (1) 63

1.05 Pedro (2) 67

1.10 Santana (4) 73

1.13 Schilling (11) 79

1.14 Maddux (6) 76

1.14 Saberhagen (14) 80

1.15 S Fernandez 90

1.15 Scherzer 82

1.16 C Hamels 81

1.17 Halladay (7)76

1.17 Clemens (3) 70

1.17 Sutton 94 (5.4 K/9)

1.18 R Guidry 84 (6.6 K/9)

 

There are 24 pitchers with over 3500 IP since 1977. 17 of them have a K/9 rate below 7.2. Of the 16 with ERA- below 90, 9 have k/9 rates below 7.2, 8 are below 6.6, and 5 are below 6.1. Glavine and Buehrle are below 5.4.

 

[sk7326]

But what does that even mean - and what is the pitcher's contribution there? The name of the game is not allowing runs - which is a team's job. All the stats you pull up is confirming the assertion - that strikeout rate is a pretty good estimator for pitcher quality, which you'd expect. It's not the only one - but things like ERA- or WHIP (for whatever that's worth) are outputs. Strikeouts are baked into those results. Now there are other things - not allowing hard contact. But not allowing hard contact is not really a separable skill from striking people out (aspects of the same job). Now there is something to be said for a pitcher letting a good defense be good.

[sk7326]

He's slightly better in ERA-

He's significantly better in BB/K

5.91 Porcello

5.85 Tomlin

5.18 C Sale

4.58 Tanaka

4.56 Price

4.46 Verlander

3.98 Kluber

 

There is no correlation between walks and strikeouts that makes this that interesting.

[moonslav59]

There is no correlation between walks and strikeouts that makes this that interesting.

 

My point is, you guys are making the correlation between high K rates and the end result of getting more guys out. Then, you are saying that because they are often, but not always related, then high Ks should be used to judge the final output.

 

I'm saying judge the final output. If someone's got a high LD% and low BABIP number or some other indicator that he is getting lucky or getting away with allowing more balls put in play due to superior defense than who you are comparing him to, then I get it, but that's not the case here.

 

I brought up the BB/K rate as a stat that can be used and "correlated" the same way Ks are. Most pitchers with great BB/K rates end up with great outputs, so naturally that stat should then be used as part of the judgement of the output. It's nonsense.

 

Pitchers get guys out in many ways. I get the argument that forcing the defense to help make the out often will lead to more hits, but when it doesn't, why hold it against the pitcher? Plus, Porcello walks less batters, and that more BBs puts men on base without the defense having a say in the matter. It's all on the pitcher (maybe some on the catcher?).

 

Porcello let up less hits + walks per inning than anyone but Verlander (by 0.01).

 

Porcello has the best park and opponent adjusted ERA (ERA-)..

 

That's the output

 

That's the bottom line. He did it by walking less batters. He did it by allowing less runs than expected by playing in more hitters' parks and facing way tougher teams and offenses (ERA- proves that point).

 

Maybe If Porcello played on the Guardians, who have a better defense, play in more of a pitcher's park, and face easier opponents, he'd have more Ks, less hits allowed and a better ERA and K/9 rate.

 

Edited October 5, 2016 by moonslav59

[sk7326]

My point is, you guys are making the correlation between high K rates and the end result of getting more guys out. Then, you are saying that because they are often, but not always related, then high Ks should be used to judge the final output.

 

I'm saying judge the final output. If someone's got a high LD% and low BABIP number or some other indicator that he is getting lucky or getting away with allowing more balls put in play due to superior defense than who you are comparing him to, then I get it, but that's not the case here.

 

I brought up the BB/K rate as a stat that can be used and "correlated" the same way Ks are. Most pitchers with great BB/K rates end up with great outputs, so naturally that stat should then be used as part of the judgement of the output. It's nonsense.

 

Pitchers get guys out in many ways. I get the argument that forcing the defense to help make the out often will lead to more hits, but when it doesn't, why hold it against the pitcher? Plus, Porcello walks less batters, and that more BBs puts men on base without the defense having a say in the matter. It's all on the pitcher (maybe some on the catcher?).

 

Porcello let up less hits + walks per inning than anyone but Verlander (by 0.01).

 

Porcello has the best park and opponent adjusted ERA (ERA-)..

 

That's the output

 

That's the bottom line. He did it by walking less batters. He did it by allowing less runs than expected by playing in more hitters' parks and facing way tougher teams and offenses (ERA- proves that point).

 

Maybe If Porcello played on the Guardians, who have a better defense, play in more of a pitcher's park, and face easier opponents, he'd have more Ks, less hits allowed and a better ERA and K/9 rate.

 

 

* Guardians beat the Red Sox by a little in UZR, Red Sox beat the Guardians by a lot in DRS ... both teams added value defensively

* Guardians play in the 3rd best hitters park in the league, Sox play in the 4th best park in the league ... both pitchers played in hitter friendly home parks

* The competition thing is legit - although I have not looked at the start by start

 

K/BB ratio correlates well because strikeouts correlate well ... the walk component does not correlate much one way or the other.

 

I don't actually disagree with Porcello as the Cy Young winner - there are four good candidates and he is one of them. He and Kluber have - essentially - identical park adjusted ERAs (ERA+ or ERA-, both are really close), and they allowed an equal number of runs per 9 innings (ignoring the "Earned" portion - since assignment of earned vs unearned runs is in general a bit of a mess). Porcello pitched 8 more innings, but from a bulk prespective, again, both are pretty close.

 

Where they differ is that Kluber struck out more hitters, and (at least from a couple of studies) got a little less defensive help than Porcello did relative to the quality of contact. I note that bWAR, which starts with runs allowed and adjusts from there, has Kluber and Verlander with a significant lead on the AL field - which is noteworthy. Porcello had a marvelous season, and if he won, that would be okay. He has quietly transitioned from being a groundball pitcher into one who strikes out more hitters - there is nothing bad to say.