Skip to content

On the American League Cy Young Award debate and open-mindedness…

Sep 29, 2010, 9:51 PM EDT

Seattle Mariners Photo Day Getty Images

“Loyalty to a petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul.”

Mark Twain wrote that. And now I’m stealing it to head up a blog post about
baseball stats. That’s either really cliche or really stupid. Or
both. Yeah, it’s both.


My name is Drew Silva. I contribute here on Hardball Talk during the
weekends and on a couple of weekday nights. This piece is not about me,
nor is it about my way of thinking. It’s a call for open-mindedness
toward new advancements in the understanding of baseball and new
technologies that help in the evaluation of baseball players.


Paul Hoynes of the Cleveland Plain Dealer has covered the Indians beat for
over 20 years. He’s seen hundreds of blown saves and plenty of anemic
batting lineups, as has any other beat writer. But on September 11 of
this season he published a column on the Plain Dealer‘s website
that stated:

In pitching, the only thing that really matters is wins.

Hoynes wasn’t taking about team victories. Everybody knows that a team must collect wins in order to reach the playoffs, and then must win in the postseason in order to be awarded the World Series title. That’s obvious. It’s what everybody plays for. But Hoynes wasn’t talking about those kind of wins.

Hoynes was talking about the kind of victories that show up in a pitcher’s win-loss record and he was making reference to this year’s debate about the American League Cy Young Award. Hoynes believes that Yankees left-hander CC Sabathia should be given the highly-coveted hardware because he is a 20-game winner and that Mariners ace Felix Hernandez should be denied the award because he stands 13-12. Hoynes came to this conclusion because he is under the belief that a win, as he writes, is “the most important stat” a pitcher can accumulate.

Hoynes is … well … wrong.

He’s not wrong about Sabathia being deserving of an award — CC is great, and would take the Cy most years with the numbers he’s put up — but Hoynes is wrong about using a win-loss record as a barometer for pitching success. Those “wins” rely too heavily on outside factors.

Hernandez is the ace on a team with a historically pitiful offense. Sabathia pitches on a club with a $200 million payroll and a lineup built to mash. There should be no bias either way. The Cy Young Award, after all, is meant to be given to baseball’s best pitcher. Not the most fortunate.

This all got me thinking — and, whether right or wrong outlet, I tweeted my thoughts:

If the BBWAA’s awards are to be taken seriously, there should be a
requirement that all members understand baseball’s advanced statistics.

Relying on win-loss records as a means for player evaluation is foolish and beyond outdated. A win-loss record might have indicated something about a pitcher back in the 1920s, when starters finished games, but the stat is essentially useless in this modern era of seven-man bullpens and six-inning starts.

My tweet caused a small stir in a pocket of the online baseball writing community. C. Trent Rosecrans of CBSSports.com suggested that I was demanding that all writers think like me. Will Carroll of SI.com and Baseball Prospectus said I was doing myself a “disservice” with my “jihad” on the baseball establishment.

There is no jihad, and I couldn’t care less about hurting my reputation in the eyes of national baseball writers who still rely on win-loss records for a means of handing out Cy Young Awards. I’ve never written for the pursuit of fame and I didn’t start following baseball as a toddler with an eye on turning it into a career path. I started following baseball because my Dad taught me to revere Cal Ripken Jr. And because I thought Ken Griffey Jr. had the sweetest swing. And because, as a St. Louisan, Albert Pujols shaped my summers. Then Matthew Pouliot, Gregg Rosenthal and Aaron Gleeman asked me to write about baseball for Rotoworld and Tim Dierkes asked me to contribute at MLB Trade Rumors.

So I dug in. I gathered all possible knowledge — all possible data — on the game of baseball and will continue to do so until someone decides that I’m not cut out for it.

But, again, this is not about me or my way of thinking. In fact, it has nothing to do with who I am or what I’m about. This is a request that writers, who are paid to cover baseball, begin to embrace advancements in the understanding of their sport. Especially when it comes to evaluating players for the purpose of handing out awards. What I’m asking for is open-mindedness and a couple of hours of reading, really.

Want a stat that tells you more about a pitcher than a win-loss record? ERA, WHIP and K/BB ratio are a fine starting point and can all be computed in about a second. But why stop there? Why not bring in all possible data? FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching) is an ERA estimator that aims to keep pitchers from being punished by bad defense. Even better is xFIP, which takes into account the size of different ballparks and normalizes home run rates. WAR (Wins Above Replacement) spits out a simple number that expresses a player’s value in terms of wins. King Felix has a 6.4 WAR this season, meaning he’s meant 6.4 more wins to the Mariners than a run-of-the-mill starter. He ranks third among all major league pitchers in WAR, behind only the Phillies’ Roy Halladay and the Rangers’ Cliff Lee.

The formulas behind those more advanced stats involve some fairly complicated math, but nobody is asking for elaborate computations on the part of writers. That’s what a site like FanGraphs is for. Or Baseball-Reference. These numbers are readily available to the masses and yet some baseball writers and award-voters are choosing to ignore
them. Which brings me to my next tweet
:

It’s hard to understand why developing a better understanding of new
technology, new ideas would be seen as a negative. In any field. Ever.

Writers that prefer to avoid advanced baseball statistics often revert to calling those that do “statheads,” or “nerds,” or “geeks.” ESPN.com’s Rob Parker did it last week. Will Carroll did the same. While hardly offensive, name-calling stunts civil discourse. And last I checked, nerdy is rarely a bad thing once a person steps outside the halls of high school.

Why are a number of national and local baseball writers opting to ignore tools that aid in the evaluation of players? Some have suggested that it’s about a fear of math. Some think it’s intellectual laziness. Others have suggested that embracing new data would be seen as a form of selling-out by the old guard in the world of baseball journalism.

To me, this debate has become far too polarized. There’s no need to term this a clashing of belief systems and no need for politics to play a role because new data and new technologies need only to be seen as a positive. A dose of open-mindedness toward advanced baseball statistics and a willingness for progress is what this industry needs badly.

Then we have the issue of fan involvement, or, as Will Carroll calls it, “marketability.”

Carroll, who I respect and read often, suggested in a post on Press Coverage last week that stats like OPS and WAR bear little merit because they aren’t properly designed for mass consumption. 99% of baseball fans, as he says, don’t care about such metrics.

But here’s my question: why should they? Fans are allowed to view the game and follow the game as they please, because it’s not their job. Nobody is relying on Joe Cubs Fan to determine baseball’s Most Valuable Player or baseball’s top pitcher.

All of my friends are baseball fans, big baseball fans. But I don’t think any of them care enough about the sport to read up on WAR or Ultimate Zone Rating or something like xFIP. And that’s their prerogative, because they are not paid to write about baseball and are not asked to hand out awards that often mean big-money bonuses to the winners and shape the legacy of the game.

One last thing. Kevin Goldstein of Baseball Prospectus suggested during this debate that we should all “stop caring about the awards so much” because the system is flawed and because the “concept of value or best is subjective.” He’s right about that second part.  Voting is always going to be left up to a select group of people and they have their own biases. But why is it so appalling to ask those voters to consider new data? Better data. Then the system might not be so flawed and then we might see votes that aren’t based on win-loss records.

As for the “stop caring” part, I heartily say NO. I won’t stop caring. Baseball fans and baseball writers shouldn’t have to. Because this industry can do better.

  1. kevinapps - Sep 30, 2010 at 10:41 PM

    What inefficiency with pitch counts?
    Among AL pitchers with 100+ IP, Hernandez has used the 6th-fewest pitches/inning. I don’t find that argument to hold much water.

  2. Travis W - Oct 1, 2010 at 12:07 AM

    But Frank, he had to pitch against the Yanks zero times and got to pitch against the M’s.

  3. Scott - Oct 1, 2010 at 12:15 AM

    Such a shame that this post contains the concept of “open-mindedness” in the title. You have a great argument for Felix. Personally, I’d give the kid the Cy Young as well. I suspect he’ll end up with the award when all is said and done. As an article about Felix’s great season and his qualifications for the Cy Young, you’re spot on! Unfortunately, as an article about open-mindedness… well, don’t get me started.
    “What I’m demanding is open-mindedness and a couple of hours of reading, really.”
    This is about you demanding open-mindedness for your arguments, but you don’t seem to be very open-minded to the arguments of others. If you were, I doubt you’d go as far as to call another man’s opinion with such a strong statement as “Hoynes is flat out wrong.”
    At the end of the day, BEST is a subjective term. Is the best pitcher the guy who struck out the most batters and pitched the most innings? Is he the player who accumulated the most wins? Is he the guy who meant the most to his team? Who brought in the most fans and dollars to the ballpark? How about the player who was his team’s stopper in a pennant race when the rest of the rotation was in shambles? There isn’t a correct answer. Every person brings their own qualifications to the title BEST. As such, it seems close-minded and borderline ignorant to demand that everybody must likewise have the same interpretation of what makes a pitcher great (not saying that you did this, of course).
    Let’s just agree that we have different opinions about baseball and that we can reach different conclusions depending on how we weigh data! Isn’t it grand that we can have this debate about a kid’s game? I hate it when the MVP or Cy Young Award is a given for a specific player. It sure takes all the fun out of the award for us baseball fans. So let’s have our debates, but please let’s be civil and not accuse each other of being ignorant or unprofessional. These baseball writers who value wins have dedicated their entire lives to their trade. To make a living writing about baseball, you have to be very dedicated, care about the game to the detriment of other aspects of your life and most of all, work very very very hard every day. These people view baseball differently than we do, and we should celebrate this diversity of opinion rather than demand that they view the world as we do.
    Open-mindedness is a concept we must both strive to practice every day.
    And hey, it’s just baseball. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

  4. Ducky Medwick - Mar 10, 2011 at 10:46 PM

    Drew, you might get a kick out of some stats my buddy and I are working on. We’re trying to analyze the accuracy of MVP, Cy Young, Gold Glove award voting using runs created/runs saved. Check us out:

    http://deadballers.wordpress.com/

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Why is Wren out and Gonzalez is not?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (2675)
  2. J. Heyward (2122)
  3. J. Hamilton (2089)
  4. M. Trout (1986)
  5. S. Pearce (1964)
  1. D. Ortiz (1915)
  2. J. Ellsbury (1909)
  3. D. Jeter (1905)
  4. C. Kershaw (1862)
  5. A. Pagan (1846)