Author Topic: Cy Young Discussion on MLB Network  (Read 692 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30151
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Cy Young Discussion on MLB Network
« Reply #25: October 03, 2012, 03:44:32 PM »
Right, just like the Gold Glove always goes to the best defensive player and the MVP always goes ot the player that helped his team the most.

Offline nobleisthyname

  • Posts: 2159
Re: Cy Young Discussion on MLB Network
« Reply #26: October 03, 2012, 03:46:09 PM »
Right, just like the Gold Glove always goes to the best defensive player and the MVP always goes ot the player that helped his team the most.

Well they're supposed to. I think we can all agree that the writers are idiots  :lol:

Also you may have missed my edit in my last  post. Who is your choice for the Cy Young?

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 27908
  • FREE TURNER
Re: Cy Young Discussion on MLB Network
« Reply #27: October 03, 2012, 03:47:14 PM »
Right, just like the Gold Glove always goes to the best defensive player and the MVP always goes ot the player that helped his team the most.

GG is supposed to. MVP is supposed to go to the best player, not the one who helped his team the most. Alex Rodriguez never helped the Rangers do anything.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30151
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Cy Young Discussion on MLB Network
« Reply #28: October 03, 2012, 03:48:19 PM »
Well they're supposed to. I think we can all agree that the writers are idiots  :lol:

Sure.  It's a given.  And you could obviously make the case that the Cy Young is the only major award that's decided the way it should be decided, but since none of the other awards are decided that way, I'd rather they show some consistency instead of giving it to such a boring pitcher.  You know what they normally call a guy with one pitch?  A reliever.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30151
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Cy Young Discussion on MLB Network
« Reply #29: October 03, 2012, 03:49:46 PM »
supposed to. supposed to.

Like I said.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30151
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Cy Young Discussion on MLB Network
« Reply #30: October 03, 2012, 03:50:25 PM »
Also you may have missed my edit in my last  post. Who is your choice for the Cy Young?

I think Kershaw is a fine choice.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 27908
  • FREE TURNER
Re: Cy Young Discussion on MLB Network
« Reply #31: October 03, 2012, 03:51:04 PM »
Like I said.

You never said supposed to

I think Kershaw is a fine choice.

And Dickey was better. So was Gio and Cueto for that matter.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30151
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Cy Young Discussion on MLB Network
« Reply #32: October 03, 2012, 03:52:31 PM »
You never said supposed to

And Dickey was better. So was Gio and Cueto for that matter.

edit - disregard the comment that was here, slateman just has a unique ability to get on my nerves.

Also not sure how you figure Gio was better than Kershaw.  Kershaw had a higher ERA+ and a lower WHIP.  Their fWARs are margin-of-error differnce, and pitching WAR isn't nearly as sound as batting WAR anyway.

Offline nobleisthyname

  • Posts: 2159
Re: Cy Young Discussion on MLB Network
« Reply #33: October 03, 2012, 03:53:29 PM »
Sure.  It's a given.  And you could obviously make the case that the Cy Young is the only major award that's decided the way it should be decided, but since none of the other awards are decided that way, I'd rather they show some consistency instead of giving it to such a boring pitcher.  You know what they normally call a guy with one pitch?  A reliever.

The Cy Young has certainly gotten better over the past few years, though I think wins are still weighted a bit too much (i.e., more than zero). But like I said on the last page I'll leave it at that.

I think Kershaw is a fine choice.

I would not be upset if he got the award over Dickey either.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 27908
  • FREE TURNER
Re: Cy Young Discussion on MLB Network
« Reply #34: October 03, 2012, 03:57:13 PM »
Do you need me to spell it out to you like you're five?  I didn't think I was being all that subtle, but maybe I gave you too much credit :shrug:

Also not sure how you figure Gio was better than Kershaw.  Kershaw had a higher ERA+ and a lower WHIP.

More losses and fewer wins. Lower WAR. Less strikeouts. Worse FIP. Please ... this isn't even hard.

Dickey won 20 games on a team with a losing record. Last time that happened was 1997 with Roger Clemens. And he won the Cy Young too. Dickey was the best pitcher in the NL this season. Period.

Offline nobleisthyname

  • Posts: 2159
Re: Cy Young Discussion on MLB Network
« Reply #35: October 03, 2012, 04:00:36 PM »
More losses and fewer wins. Lower WAR. Less strikeouts. Worse FIP. Please ... this isn't even hard.

Dickey won 20 games on a team with a losing record. Last time that happened was 1997 with Roger Clemens. And he won the Cy Young too. Dickey was the best pitcher in the NL this season. Period.

You're straight up wrong about the strikeouts. Kershaw has more and actually has a slight edge over Gio in K% (25.3 vs 25.2). He also possesses a much better BB% and ~20 more innings pitched. Pitching WAR is based on FIP so it's not surprising Gio has him beat there with a lower FIP but Kershaw has the better xFIP and SIERA and the difference is much greater.

As for Dickey, lol wins (though I do have him as my favorite).

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30151
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Cy Young Discussion on MLB Network
« Reply #36: October 03, 2012, 04:03:23 PM »
More losses and fewer wins. Lower WAR. Less strikeouts. Worse FIP. Please ... this isn't even hard.

Dickey won 20 games on a team with a losing record. Last time that happened was 1997 with Roger Clemens. And he won the Cy Young too. Dickey was the best pitcher in the NL this season. Period.

You realize this discussion is not about who had the best season according to the pencil pushers, right?  Attempting to change subjects in an argument is a pretty stale tactic.

Online Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 34339
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: Cy Young Discussion on MLB Network
« Reply #37: October 03, 2012, 04:33:44 PM »
I think wins do matter... As in, Dickey was able to win 20 on a crappy team.

Online Ray D

  • Posts: 5577
Re: Cy Young Discussion on MLB Network
« Reply #38: October 03, 2012, 04:49:15 PM »
I think wins do matter...
It isn't that they don't matter, nobody said that, in fact they are the most important bottom line statistic for measuring the success of a team.  Repeat: a team.   They are a poor measurement of a pitcher's achievements. 

Say a pitcher throws seven innings and gives up one run.  And next outing does the same thing.  And the next. Those are good outings.  But in the first game his team scores no runs. In the second they score seven runs before he leaves. In the third game they score seven runs all in the eighth inning.  So he gets 1 win, 1 loss, and 1 no decision. All for roughly the same effort.

Or say a pitcher throws five  innings and gives up seven runs.  And next outing does the same thing.  And the next. Those are bad  outings.  He can still get 1 win, 1 loss, and 1 no decision, all for roughly the same effort.

Or say he comes in to save a game, blows the save, and the team re-takes the lead their next at bat. He gets the win, for performing badly. If he had done his job he would not get the win.

Those are just a few of many examples of why wins is not a good measurement.   Sure, over the course of a full season, more wins is generally better than less wins, and I think wins are important, just not THAT important.








Offline nobleisthyname

  • Posts: 2159
Re: Cy Young Discussion on MLB Network
« Reply #39: October 03, 2012, 04:53:08 PM »
I think wins do matter... As in, Dickey was able to win 20 on a crappy team.

It's still a team stat. Just looked it up and Dickey was 15th in the NL in run support, well ahead of Detwiler, Jackson, and Kershaw. His ERA could have been two runs higher and he still would probably have had a winning record.

Online Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 34339
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: Cy Young Discussion on MLB Network
« Reply #40: October 03, 2012, 05:04:32 PM »
I don't want to be confused with someone who is just into wins, rbi's etc. Just in this case, with Dickey, I think 20 wins is a big achievement for someone on the Mets.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30151
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Cy Young Discussion on MLB Network
« Reply #41: October 03, 2012, 06:43:27 PM »
I know somebody here must get where I'm coming from with the whole "Dickey is a boring choice" thing, right?

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 16830
  • No Trade Clause
Re: Cy Young Discussion on MLB Network
« Reply #42: October 03, 2012, 08:40:05 PM »
I know somebody here must get where I'm coming from with the whole "Dickey is a boring choice" thing, right?


You're a dinosaur in a trashcan - nobody knows where you're coming from

 :) :thumbs: