Cy Young, Jacob DeGrom, and Ben Sheets

[homer]

 

[Jenkins5]

1 3rd place vote for a 7.2 WAR.... winning always more important than production. DeGrom could be 0-20 this season & he still would deserve Cy Young. It’s suppose to go to best pitcher not best team. W/L is one of worst stats ever. I remember watching Sheets knowing if he gave up a run, they’d lose. Then Doug David would get shelled for 6 & still always get the W....

[phnxcrew]

1 3rd place vote for a 7.2 WAR.... winning always more important than production. DeGrom could be 0-20 this season & he still would deserve Cy Young. It’s suppose to go to best pitcher not best team. W/L is one of worst stats ever. I remember watching Sheets knowing if he gave up a run, they’d lose. Then Doug David would get shelled for 6 & still always get the W....

 

hey now, DD still had a 3.38 era that year as I recall. That’s facing the cream of the steroid crop

[DuWayne Steurer]

Funny enough, 36 years ago pet vuckovich won the cy young award with a 2.9 war, while compiling an 18-6 w/l record and a prettt darn ugly 1.500 whip. Dave Stieb had a 7.7 war, but went 17-14, and finiahed 4th in the cy voting.

[TURBO]

WAR is flawed, and should not be the determining factor in the Cy Young award.

[tmwiese55]

Scherzer's stats are nothing to sneeze at either though.

[Lathund]

WAR is flawed, and should not be the determining factor in the Cy Young award.

 

It should not be the sole determining factor, on that we can agree. But if your statement goes further than that, and that it shouldn't even be one of the factors, then mind explaining what aspect of bWAR for pitchers makes you feel that?

[homer]

WAR is flawed, and should not be the determining factor in the Cy Young award.

 

Not saying you're wrong but what should be?

[MadScientist]

WAR is flawed, and should not be the determining factor in the Cy Young award.

 

It should not be the sole determining factor, on that we can agree. But if your statement goes further than that, and that it shouldn't even be one of the factors, then mind explaining what aspect of bWAR for pitchers makes you feel that?

bWAR for pitchers has a black box feel that often doesn't pass the smell test. Look at Chacin's numbers and Arrieta's numbers and explain why Arrieta is a 3.3 bWAR and Chacin is 1.9 bWAR. Chacin has better numbers for Games, IP, ERA, FIP, WHIP, K9, H9, HR9, and WP. Arrieta leads only in BB9, K/BB and HBP.

 

For batters in bWAR, look at last year's stats and explain why Sogard had a better bWAR than Braun (1.9 vs 1.2).

 

Also the fact that there is a bWAR and an fWAR that can be significantly different makes the whole concept of a WAR stat seem less reliable.

 

Even ignoring WAR, DeGrom's stats are impressive and worth consideration of a Cy Young award. Given that we are in the era of the reliever, it's impossible for a pitcher on a bad team to have a '72 Steve Carlton record.

[Lathund]

WAR is flawed, and should not be the determining factor in the Cy Young award.

 

It should not be the sole determining factor, on that we can agree. But if your statement goes further than that, and that it shouldn't even be one of the factors, then mind explaining what aspect of bWAR for pitchers makes you feel that?

bWAR for pitchers has a black box feel that often doesn't pass the smell test. Look at Chacin's numbers and Arrieta's numbers and explain why Arrieta is a 3.3 bWAR and Chacin is 1.9 bWAR. Chacin has better numbers for Games, IP, ERA, FIP, WHIP, K9, H9, HR9, and WP. Arrieta leads only in BB9, K/BB and HBP.

 

The reason I specifically mentioned pitching bWAR is because it's something that really isn't a black box, bb-Ref quite clearly outline how it's calculated themselves. And their version of WAR is based on RA/9, trying to separate the pitchers part in that from the defense but still looking at the result, not how (i.e high strikeout numbers or some other way) they got there. In the case of Arrieta and Chacin the difference comes from adjusting for defense. Chacin has had the second best defense in majors (by DRS) behind him, Arrieta has had the absolute worst. Brewers are at +85 DRS, Phillies are at -112.

 

So essentially it's RA/9 adjusted for defense, park and opposition. Which, other than extreme outliers, means that pitchers with a low ERA and a lot of innings pitched will accrue a lot of WAR. ERA and IP being two of the primary stats many people use for Cy Young consideration. So I wanted to see what the arguments were behind it. Wanted to see if it was a case of, say, trashing xFIP as a metric but in the same breath praising K/BB ratio.

 

Baseball Prospectus' Deserved Run Average (Which is the basis for their WARP for pitchers) takes a rather different approach, trying to incorporate absolutely everything into it. But that rates Oliver Drake as one of the best performers on the Brewers this year, so I don't think most Brewers fans would prefer that.

 

For batters in bWAR, look at last year's stats and explain why Sogard had a better bWAR than Braun (1.9 vs 1.2).

 

That one is pretty simple. Defense and positional adjustment. Braun was better offensively, but not by all that much. He's obviously the better hitter, but he had a down year last year and Sogard had an unlikely career year. bWAR is descriptive, not predictive. Braun played poor defense in left field, which is near the bottom of the defensive spectrum. Sogard played average to above average defense at 2B and average to below average defense at SS, two of the more important defensive positions. One way to look at it would be how much better or worse the team would be if Braun played SS/2B and Sogard played LF.

 

Also the fact that there is a bWAR and an fWAR that can be significantly different makes the whole concept of a WAR stat seem less reliable.

 

Which is why it's a good idea to, when they differ a lot, take the average. When it comes to position players, differences nearly always stem from defense. DRS (used in bWAR) tends to produce more extreme differences between good and bad defenders than UZR, even when they both agree on who the best and worst defenders are.

 

Generally though the problem with WAR isn't so much WAR itself, but how it's used. And a lack of understanding of what it is and how it's calculated. Small differences in WAR over short periods of time should be ignored (Which their creators also are very clear with), but larger differences over time are a whole other matter. That's largely due to defensive metrics needing a long time to stabilize. What WAR essentially does is package together offense, defense, baserunning and playing time to give an overview of roughly how much a player contributed. It's a way to compare a baserunning phenom, a defensive wizard and Chris Carter. It's a good starting point, you can then look further to see in what manner they accrued those WAR.

 

Lorenzo Cain isn't an MVP candidate because he leads the league in bWAR. He's an MVP candiate (or should be) because he's good at the plate, a good baserunner and a good defender. WAR simply sums that up, and shows how valuable that is.

 

It's also evolving all the time, and as defensive metrics get better it will get more accurate. Statcast data, when/if it gets implemented, will likely be a big step forward.

[MadScientist]

It's also evolving all the time, and as defensive metrics get better it will get more accurate. Statcast data, when/if it gets implemented, will likely be a big step forward.

 

That is a big problem with the utility of WAR, especially bWAR. We've constantly heard on this board that various defensive metrics have problems with them and don't accurately reflect the quality of the defense a player has. Furthermore the extreme weigh they put on defensive positions is not reflective of current value. Sogard got a huge bonus over Braun just because he played middle infield, not because he played it well. That seems somewhat dubious just on it's face. Also with all the shifting and focus on elevating the ball, should middle infield be valued the way it might have been 30 years ago.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/baseball-positions-are-starting-to-lose-their-meaning/

 

If we say there is a true WAR out there, it seems that the values we are getting should all have a +/- 1.5 after them. Given that the range tends to be -2 to 10, with most players in the -.5 to 5 range, that makes it pretty marginal stat at present.

[Lathund]

It's also evolving all the time, and as defensive metrics get better it will get more accurate. Statcast data, when/if it gets implemented, will likely be a big step forward.

 

We've constantly heard on this board that various defensive metrics have problems with them and don't accurately reflect the quality of the defense a player has. Furthermore the extreme weigh they put on defensive positions is not reflective of current value. Sogard got a huge bonus over Braun just because he played middle infield, not because he played it well. That seems somewhat dubious just on it's face.

 

The issue isn't that they don't reflect the quality, it's that they take a long time to stabilize. Over a couple of seasons they will do a good job. Over half a season not so much. Or rather, over such a short period of time they may very well reflect it exactly, but we can't say for sure whether they do. This really isn't all that different from offensive metrics though, even traditional ones. Batting average, individual pitching matchups, platoon splits and such also take a long time to stabilize and to accurately reflect true talent. Yet the same people trashing advanced metrics will still put their faith in a pitcher vs hitter matchup over 30 plate appearances. It's just a case of the people behind one set of metrics being clear about both flaws and benefits.

 

I know it's popular to hate Sogard on here, but he does play infield defense fairly well, while Braun didn't play particularly good defense in LF last year. And yes, it is a harder to position to play defensively than LF is, of course that should be factored in somehow. Francisco Lindor and Jesus Aguilar have very similar offensive numbers (Both have a 138 wRC+), yet would you say that Aguilar is anywhere near as valuable? Fewer balls being put in play might mean the positional adjustment gets reduced by 10-15%, it doesn't mean it disappears. If even that; fewer balls in play affects all positions. Truly elite defense, the ability to make a real difference on even fewer chances than before, might even become more valuable.

[sveumrules]

Let's remove WAR from the equation. How would you rank these 3 starting pitchers who received votes for the 2004 NL Cy Young award?

 

A: 214 IP 218 K 79 BB 71 ER 169 H

B: 245 IP 290 K 44 BB 71 ER 177 H

C: 237 IP 264 K 32 BB 71 ER 201 H

 

I won't reveal my order, but there is a pretty clear one, two & three to me from looking at those numbers.

 

How would you rank these three pitchers currently in contention for the 2018 NL Cy Young award?

 

A: 193 IP 260 K 46 BB 49 ER 124 H

B: 181 IP 188 K 49 BB 45 ER 128 H

C: 188 IP 230 K 42 BB 35 ER 139 H

 

Again, seems like a pretty clear one, two & three there in terms of who has pitched the best.

[KeithStone53151]

Let's remove WAR from the equation. How would you rank these 3 starting pitchers who received votes for the 2004 NL Cy Young award?

 

A: 214 IP 218 K 79 BB 71 ER 169 H

B: 245 IP 290 K 44 BB 71 ER 177 H

C: 237 IP 264 K 32 BB 71 ER 201 H

 

I won't reveal my order, but there is a pretty clear one, two & three to me from looking at those numbers.

 

How would you rank these three pitchers currently in contention for the 2018 NL Cy Young award?

 

A: 193 IP 260 K 46 BB 49 ER 124 H

B: 181 IP 188 K 49 BB 45 ER 128 H

C: 188 IP 230 K 42 BB 35 ER 139 H

 

Again, seems like a pretty clear one, two & three there in terms of who has pitched the best.

 

I'd argue the 2nd set isn't quite as clear. Set one I'd go B, C, A...seems relatively obvious. Set two is less obvious, but I personally like C, A, B. For me B is a distant 3rd. A has more K's and slightly better whip than C...but significantly more runs allowed. Depending on what stats matter more, C and A are up for debate and generally pretty close.

[sveumrules]

Let's remove WAR from the equation. How would you rank these 3 starting pitchers who received votes for the 2004 NL Cy Young award?

 

A: 214 IP 218 K 79 BB 71 ER 169 H

B: 245 IP 290 K 44 BB 71 ER 177 H

C: 237 IP 264 K 32 BB 71 ER 201 H

 

I won't reveal my order, but there is a pretty clear one, two & three to me from looking at those numbers.

 

How would you rank these three pitchers currently in contention for the 2018 NL Cy Young award?

 

A: 193 IP 260 K 46 BB 49 ER 124 H

B: 181 IP 188 K 49 BB 45 ER 128 H

C: 188 IP 230 K 42 BB 35 ER 139 H

 

Again, seems like a pretty clear one, two & three there in terms of who has pitched the best.

 

I'd argue the 2nd set isn't quite as clear. Set one I'd go B, C, A...seems relatively obvious. Set two is less obvious, but I personally like C, A, B. For me B is a distant 3rd. A has more K's and slightly better whip than C...but significantly more runs allowed. Depending on what stats matter more, C and A are up for debate and generally pretty close.

 

Agree with you that this year's crop is a lot closer. For me C takes it over A because ultimately I value the 14 less runs over the the 30 extra strikeouts, 5 extra innings & slightly lower rate of baserunners.

[Thurston Fluff]

WAR is flawed, and should not be the determining factor in the Cy Young award.

 

WAR is a fan stat. It boils everything down to one number so everyone can compare any two players with one simple number. To use it for any other purpose is malpractice.

[Samurai Bucky]

WSSP started broadcasting December of 2004. Shortly thereafter, there was a radio personality (I can't remember who), that argued quite adamantly that Sheets wasn't a good pitcher because of his record. "He didn't do enough to be considered a good pitcher."

 

IIRC, that personality was short lived for WSSP.