POLL: 2011 National League Cy Young
Posted by Andy on October 4, 2011
Two polls...one for who deserves it and one for who will actually win it.
Posted by Andy on October 4, 2011
Two polls...one for who deserves it and one for who will actually win it.
October 4th, 2011 at 8:10 am
hopefully someone else will post before me, by the time that I get done typing this, so that this is not the first comment......because, I just finally threw my hands up in the air, and voted for Halladay deserving the Cy Young, only on the strength of him being, along with Mauer, my fave player.
Kershaw was an easy choice for 'going to win it', though. No way that he doesn't.
October 4th, 2011 at 8:17 am
fodder for all of you, claiming that East Coast Bias exists on this site: I see that RA Dickey already has 1 vote, and an almost 2% share of the "Who deserves to win...." poll.
really?
Maybe you mis-clicked......return the vote to the front step, at midnight, and no questions will be asked ;-p
October 4th, 2011 at 8:32 am
Cole Hamels should be an option, he fell off at the end, but he still clearly had a better year than at least 6 of the other options... NL WHIP leader, top 5 with Halladay and Lee in most other major statistical categories... Im not saying he either deserves to win or will win, but he should be included in the poll.
October 4th, 2011 at 8:43 am
Too close to call. I eliminated Kershaw because he has a few more unearned runs (7) than Lee or Halladay (4). Then I took Halladay because of a better K/BB.
October 4th, 2011 at 8:52 am
Hamels was supposed to be in there...deleted by accident
October 4th, 2011 at 8:56 am
I think Halladay deserves it, but that Kershaw will win it. Simply based on the fact that Halladay hurls in a hitters park and still managed to put up numbers comparable to Kershaw, who pitched his home games in a pitchers park. Of course, the guy in the pitcher's park will get the nod by the official voters.
2.48/2.23 Halladay's home/road ERA
1.69/2.87 Kershaw's home/road ERA
& takin' a quick peek at their road games in some hitters parks, shows Halladay was significantly better than Kershaw... at places like Denver & Cincinnati.
So it seems to me that as good as Kershaw was, he was helped a lot by his evironment and Halladay wasn't really helped by his.
When I look at FIP, Halladay (2.20) beats Kershaw (2.47) there too, by a significant margin.
October 4th, 2011 at 9:09 am
Hamels has been added...I remember deleting him while crafting the poll because I was changing the order (even though the names are displayed to you randomly) and then I forgot to add him back...
October 4th, 2011 at 9:35 am
Hamels addition doesn't change my votes -- to me, it's still a two-man race between Kershaw and Halladay.
October 4th, 2011 at 9:38 am
RA Dickey? Really? I'm a big Mets fan, and I love RA, but why is he even in the conversation about Cy Young? Really, it's between Kershaw and Halladay as far as who deserves it, and that widens to Kennedy and maybe Lee when it comes to who will actually win it.
I went with Halladay on both, but looking at the stats, it's pretty much a toss-up between the top two guys.
October 4th, 2011 at 9:41 am
Dickey racked up 4.9 WAR this season, 6th in the NL. Don't be fooled by his W-L record. He put up a 113 ERA+ in more than 200 innings.
I'm not saying he deserves the Cy Young, but he was one of the top 10 starting pitchers in the NL this year.
October 4th, 2011 at 10:08 am
I'm glad you included Dickey, just because he's a friend of a good friend of mine. Great guy. Anyway, it boils down to Kershaw and Halladay. All the arguments for why Halladay should win are excellent, but I think Kershaw is going to be the winner.
October 4th, 2011 at 10:08 am
Yeah, Dickey was really good. I live in the Mets market, so I've seen my share of him. He lacked run support a lot...
October 4th, 2011 at 10:34 am
The Cy Young is the ""Most Valuable Pitcher" award. It says so on the trophy. So, why do pitchers on losing teams get the award? Is Matt Kemp going to win the MVP? No. Because MVP awards seldom go to players on losing teams. If you give Kershaw the Cy, then Kemp should be a frontrunner for MVP.
October 4th, 2011 at 10:40 am
As far as Dickey goes I think it all depends on how bad you think the Mets defense was this year. BR WAR has him 4.9 WAR and Fangraphs has him at 2.5 WAR
This seems like one of the biggest discrepancies in the two versions of WAR. Dickey according to BR WAR was the 6th best pitcher in the N.L. and according to Fangraphs WAR he was tied for 23rd place in the N.L.
October 4th, 2011 at 10:43 am
@13 - The award is not called Most Valuable Player Who Also Happens to Play on a Winning Team.
I can't believe it's 2011 and we're still having this argument. It's asinine.
October 4th, 2011 at 10:45 am
In the WAR for pitchers section it has:
Halladay-7.4
Kershaw-6.9
Lee-6.8
But in the Overall WAR section it has:
Kershaw-7.5
Halladay-7.3
Lee-7.3
What's the difference in the two WARS? Is it about hitting? If it's about hitting, were Kershaw and Lee that good and Halladay that bad?
If it's about the Cy Young N.L. pitchers should be judged just by their respective WAR for pitchers numbers.
October 4th, 2011 at 10:46 am
I wonder...if Kemp and Kershaw win the MVP and Cy Young---has sabermetrics gone too far? On a purely stats level, the strongest argument can be made for each of those guys, but the Dodgers were a largely irrelevant team this year....but they are individual awards, not team awards....
Hmm...
October 4th, 2011 at 11:07 am
Halladay-Kershaw-Lee in any order.
Does anyone think another pitcher will get a single vote?
I suppose Kennedy gets a homer 3rd place vote. And maybe someone who just loves their closers might make a wild 3rd place vote for Venters, Kimbrel Hanrahan or Axford. Now I'm a big Brewers honk but even I wouldn't go there.
October 4th, 2011 at 11:08 am
I'm sure lots of other guys will get votes since the ballot now calls for 1st through 5th place, not just 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.
October 4th, 2011 at 11:10 am
Some of the reasons I think Kershaw deserves it:
vs. teams at .500 or above:
-- Kershaw, 18 games, 1.93 ERA, 12-3
-- Halladay, 10 games, 3.08 ERA, 4-4
vs. teams below .500:
-- Kershaw, 15 games, 2.67 ERA, 9-2
-- Halladay, 22 games, 2.00 ERA, 15-2
Situational Wins (WPA/LI):
-- Kershaw, 4.57
-- Halladay, 3.81
The breakdown of how they pitched when given various levels of run support also favors Kershaw (which may be just another way of expressing the WPA/LI).
-- 0 runs of support: Both had 1 game and lost it.
-- 1 run: Kershaw 1-1 in 2 games; Halladay 1-2 in 3 games.
-- 2 runs: Kershaw 3-2 in 6 games; Halladay 1-2 in 3 games.
-- 3 runs: Kershaw 3-1 in 6 games; Halladay 4-1 in 6 games.
-- 4 runs: Kershaw 4-0 in 4 games; Halladay 0-0 in 2 games.
-- Total with 1-4 runs: Kershaw 11-4 in 18 games; Halladay 6-5 in 14 games.
October 4th, 2011 at 11:11 am
Even though nobody pays attention to it, the pitcher's triple crown (wins, ERA, strikeouts) has to count for something. Kershaw wins. Oh, by the way, you can vote more than once.
October 4th, 2011 at 11:12 am
@16
I noticed that too and I believe hitting accounts for most, if not all of the difference.
@17
I looked this up for a friend last week - as best I could tell the only other team to have both the MVP and Cy Young and not make the playoffs was the 1962 Dodgers. They had a great team and won 102 games, but lost the division to the 103-win Giants. Mays got robbed on that one - 10.6 WAR for a pennant winner wasn't exciting enough to offset Wills' 104 steals.
October 4th, 2011 at 11:16 am
@17, Andy -- Sabermetrics can never go too far! 🙂
But seriously ... If Kemp and Kershaw win the awards, it would still be a far more "relevant" result than, say, 1987, when Dawson won MVP for the last-place Cubs and Bedrosian won CYA for the 80-82 Phillies (with Dawson's teammate Sutcliffe just 1 point behind).
October 4th, 2011 at 11:22 am
Kinda surprised Kershaw with such strong support. Halladay and Kershaw are basically a coin flip (.5 difference in WAR, to me, is within the 'margin of error'). I went with Halladay because of park differences. Not only does Kershaw pitch in Dodger Stadium, but he also has many visits to SF and SD.
October 4th, 2011 at 11:43 am
kershaw won the triple crown, that's too much to ignore even if you can make a SABR argument for another pitcher. he will get the cy.
i think it is easier to deny kemp the mvp than kershaw the cy. think it might go to ryan braun as his team won the division, he almost won the batting title, has good raw numbers, and he was big in september. meanwhile i think verlander should take both in the al.
really i kind of think there's no good choice for mvp in either league. sometimes i wish these awards were only offered when certain conditions were met, like in ncaa basketball if your conference only got an auto bid to the ncaa tourney if, blah blah blah; and you could vote to not give out an award. of course you couldn't base the criteria on individual stats or anything like that, so i don't know what the basis for an mvp award would be.
October 4th, 2011 at 11:47 am
Roy Halladay Was THE standout star on a team full of standout stars so halladay
October 4th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
@13...I could be wrong but I thought the words "most valuable" had been removed from the Cy Young plaque.
October 4th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
woops. I was so used to 1st-2nd-3rd only for Cy Young. Did they just change that last year? It looks like in 2009 it was 1-2-3 only.
October 4th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
This is the first year under the new system. I guess it was Sean's influence on the BBWAA.
October 4th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
@23 - yeah, it would be hard to beat the NL in 1987 for the worst award distribution.
Dawson had HR and RBI. Beyond that he offered very little. WAR probably undervalues him (he wasn't even a top 10 position player and was on a last place team!).
Bedrosian also was not close to top 10 for WAR among pitchers (common for closers but even as closers go his year was not spectacular).
October 4th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
In fact... in 1987 only 2 of the 19 NL players recieving MVP votes did not have WAR above 3. Thier names were Dawson and Bedrosian.
October 4th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Pretty good ROYs in 1987, though: Benito Santiago and Mark McGwire. Neither guy will make the HOF but they both did a lot in the majors. People forget that Santiago played for 20 years!
October 4th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Kershaw won the pitching triple crown. I am not saying he should or shouldn't win, but you have to know that lots of voters will look at that and will not spend one more second on where to spend their votes.
October 4th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
I could be wrong but I thought the words "most valuable" had been removed from the Cy Young plaque.
Lately it says "outstanding."
October 4th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
@29
Last year was the first vote under the 5-slot system. This was often called the "Keith Law rule" since he left Carpenter off his 3-man ballot in 2009.
October 4th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
The one thing in baseball discussions that peeves me more than anything else is the fact that in this day and age, there are still people out there who believe that the most valuable player can't come from a non-contending team. I mean, I guess what you're saying is, obviously, if they were any good, their team would win it all, right? Clearly then Jake Westbrook deserves the award more than Kershaw, right? After all, his team is in the playoffs! The words "most valuable" or "most outstanding" in no way at all indicate that the team's performance (for which the player is only a fraction responsible) should have any bearing whatsoever on who wins.
October 4th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Taking into account home parks, I'd take Halladay as most deserving, though Kershaw is close enough that it won't be too bad when (not if) he wins.
October 4th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
I've never heard of Jhoulys Chacin. That's not an exaggeration- these polls were the first time I've seen his name in my life. Regardless, a .440 win %, leading the league in walks, an ERA almost a run and a half above the leader, and an ERA+ 40 points lower than the leader doesn't sound like much of a Cy Young contender to me.
October 4th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Does Kershaw win the triple crown, even though Kennedy has the same number of wins and a better win pct ?
October 4th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
The triple crown for pitchers is Ks, Ws and ERA. He was the co-leader w/Kennedy in Ws and led outright in the two.
October 4th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Yaz was the last batting triple crown winner and he tied frank Howard for the HR lead.
October 4th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
@38:
I've never heard that name either, but what a name!
Now I will never forget Jhoulys "Bad Scrabble Rack" Chacin, and will follow his career avidly.
October 4th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Mike/38, most of the names on this list aren't serious contenders. But as long as there so many choices, it's not unreasonable for Chacin to be among them. Everyone knows who the top candidates are but I see no reason why Andy must restrict the list, in case someone wants to make a tortured case for a fringe candidate.
October 4th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
As much as I would love to see Doc join the Pantheon of 3-time winners, or Lee join him as a 2-league winner, this is Kershaw's year. The kid stepped up in September and took it. Not to mention that he did against Lincecum this year would be the stuff of legend if the Dodgers had found a way to make the playoffs.
October 4th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Good thing I added Cole Hamels. 600+ votes at the moment and zero for him. Even Dickey has 9!
October 4th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Kershaw should win it.
Halladay will win it.
October 4th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
@Jeff, AWESOME nickname. You would even get a bingo with "Jhoulys"!
@Johnny Twisto, I am in no way implying that the list should be made smaller; just because he doesn't seem like a candidate to me doesn't mean everyone else feels the same.
October 4th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
The reason I have had so many candidates on these polls is so that the posts don't get riddled with people complaining that a given candidate isn't present. I also don't want to further any biases that may exist against fringe teams or candidates. So, I erred on the side of inclusion, and so be it if some of the candidates get few or no votes.
October 4th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
If Halladay pitched in LA or San Diego or Seattle he'd put up sub 2.00 ERA's every year.
October 4th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Anybody who can beat a 2 -time Cy Young winner 4 times in a season, when that former winner is still pitching close to that level deserves the award if they lead the league in ERA, strikeouts, and wins. Good job Roy Halla.....no wait.......it's The Claw!
October 4th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
@42: potential for "joyously"......not a play to aim for, but good to be aware of.
October 4th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Voted Halladay should, Kershaw will. It's close--I was going to vote for Kershaw twice until I looked at the leaders board a little more closely.
October 4th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Although I think the overall order of finish (based soley on sabermetrics) should be Kershaw, Lee, Halladay, Cliff Lee is probably the odd man out in that group. So the top two will most likely be Kershaw, Halladay or vice versa.
October 4th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
what about the AL
October 4th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
AL poll comes up tomorrow morning.
October 4th, 2011 at 11:33 pm
I was thinking Halladay and Kershaw were about even, actually. But Kershaw can hit, and Doc's lousy at the plate. Then I tried to parse the word 'pitcher'. Then I got a headache and just flipped a coin.
October 5th, 2011 at 12:24 am
I feel ya Shazbot. I'm certain that hitting should be include when assessing pitchers for the MVP. For the CYA? I'm not sure. And I'm not aware of any detailed instructions (like there are for the MVP) to provide guidance. I could see arguments both ways, but (at least at this moment) I'm inclined to only consider the actual pitching performance for the CYA.
Of course....does that include a pitcher's fielding performance? Which will probably affect his pitching stats? I DUNNO.
October 5th, 2011 at 5:55 am
I noticed that Cliff Lee had 0.5 WAR as a batter this season--damned impressive. Hard not to consider something like that in a Cy Young debate. I am not sure about the intent of the award but I think of it as most valuable pitcher and therefore include hitting in my thinking.
October 5th, 2011 at 10:03 am
Kershaw won pitching triple crown; that should be enough. And what Kershaw gets penalized for, playing in a pitchers park, should be offset by his 20+ wins for a .500 team. Going into WAR and FIP is not necessary. Triple crown is enough; this is not Felix winning 13 games or Lincecum winning 16. Here's the cincher: compare how the top three candidates Kershaw, Halladay, and Kennedy fared against the top twenty NL hitters and the rest of the league. Against the rest of the league: OPS allowed was .548, .547, and .601 for Ker, Hal, and Ken, respectively. Now, against the 20 hitters Hal's was .912, Ken's was .948, and Kershaw... .610!
(Top twenty hitters were ranked by adjusted OPS+.
October 5th, 2011 at 10:12 am
I included Kennedy instead of Lee because of Lee's 17 wins not being enough to beat Kershaw or Halladay. Although I concede that good arguments can be made to include Lee over Kennedy, it doesn't change the fact that Kershaw should win.
October 5th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Deron- nothing like a bias- the best player in the NL, Matt Kemp, is included in Halladay's line, but not Kershaws......
October 5th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Anthony - Kershaw hasn't had to face Kemp and Halladay hasn't had to face Ryan Howard, but both of those are silly arguments. Halladay faced Kemp 3 times out of his 933 batters faced.
You have to bring a better argument than that.
October 5th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Penalizing Kershaw for pitching games in so-called "pitchers" parks makes no sense. (If that is valid, where are the calls to penalize batters for playing in hitters' parks?)
Most starters pitch in 33 or 34 games a year. Since opposing teams are playing in the same park at all times - whether it's a hitter's or pitcher's park - wins is a better talent separator over a full season. Since the Phillies were offensively superior to the Dodgers and won 20 more games, why then don't we handicap Halladay. Lee and Hamels for their superior offensive support in all parks (34 games each) and their home hitters park (17 games each)? If they were Kerhaw's equal, they should each have MORE THAN his 21 wins.
Let's stop inventing bogus distinctions to justify personal bias. We don;t need to change the criteria every year to fit our personal candidate's profile.
October 5th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Using the logic from my comment 63 below, i.e. Philadelphia, MLB's dominant team, had both a statistical (wins) advantage and an offensive (runs) advantage over the Dodgers. Their superb pitching staff should have fared much better than they actually did. If each had fully exploited their dominant team advantage (like Kershaw exploited his pitcher's park to lower his ERA), each would have won 23 - 25 of Philly's 102 victories just to be considered EQUAL to Kershaw.'s 21 wins on a weak 82-79 team.
Can someone explain to me why they didn't do better? If my logic is faulty, then please explain last year's Cy Young Award to Felix Hernandez.
October 5th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Thomas, I don't think the question is why didn't Lee or Halladay have more wins; they had about as many wins as expected. The question is how did Kershaw have so many? - he was just that good this season.
October 5th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Deron,
Your point is well taken. Either way, though, I don't see the Philly pitchers' seasons as being equal to Kershaw's. His performance is closer to Verlander's than Halladay's or Lee's. Fewer wins on a superior team with the same number of starts is not equal. One might make the case that Kennedy's performance was equal to Kershaw's, since ERA's can be biased. But one CANNOT make a convincing argument that both Kershaw's win edge and ERA edge over the Philly starters (forget the SO edge) can be discounted because of the stadiums he plays in.
Also, those discounting Kershaw's "pitcher's park" advantage imply it is the only advantage that matters. There are statistical advantages favoring one pitcher over another with regard to every key statistic tracked. Relief staff, offensive support, defensive support, manager decision's, team speed,stadium air quality are but a few that favor one pitcher over another. The idea that Kershaw's numbers should be marginalized because he was the only NL CY candidate with a perceived advantage is ridiculous.
October 5th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
I completely agree Thomas.
October 6th, 2011 at 1:25 am
Using the logic from my comment 63 below
Which logic was that?
October 6th, 2011 at 2:03 am
"Using the logic from my comment 63 below"
Johnny Twisto,
I made a comment in post 63 that to match Kershaw's 21 wins, Halladay, Lee and Hamels each should have won 23-25 games. My reasoning was they all had a similar number of starts, but Philly won 20 more games than the Dodgers.
Why did they have fewer victories on the winningest team in baseball?
October 6th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
That post is devoid of logic. Your argument is akin to saying because Lee is Halladay's teammate, Halladay should win more games. They're the winningest team in baseball because all three of them are on the same team. If Halladay replaced Rubby de la Rosa in the Dodgers rotation, LA would win more games, but how would it affect Kershaw's win total?
The last time a team had three pitchers each win at least 23 games was 1907.