Wins are a meaningless statistic and as such C.C. Sabathia shouldn't be anybody's front-runner for this years AL Cy Young Award.
Now I've read a plethora of articles from the two opposite sides describing both why wins are important and why they are an antiquated waste of time. Joe Posnanski's two takes on the debate are a good place to start as Joe Po is one of the best and most accessible sports writers of my generation. Fangraphs and Tango Tiger's blog are also good sources to search up why wins should be discounted when talking about a pitchers Cy Young worthiness. It'd also be unfair of me to mention the sabermetric point of view without also posting links to more traditionalist articles on the subject, such as this one by Paul Hoynes.
I've already mentioned my standpoint on the subject of the value of wins so I may sound biased when I say this, but I have not found ONE well thought out article that advocates the stance that wins matter. It seems like every article written with that point of view completely ignores the calculated arguments put forth by writers like Mr. Posnanski. Their arguments seem to center around the fact that wins are the most important things in baseball and thus great pitchers should collect a high amount of wins, an inherently flawed argument that seems to discredit the the value of a teams defense and offensive output. Those writers smart enough to recognize the value of run support state that pitchers should pitch up to the competition to win, meaning if their offense is sputtering they should pitch that much better; it's basically the idea that great pitchers win games by being extremely clutch when it matters. This opinion seems to be at least a little more thought out but nobody who states it backs it up with any kind of statistical evidence. This, I believe, is the main flaw with the argument that wins matter: no one utilizes data or facts to support their argument.
I have no problem with a writer choosing Francisco Liriano (who leads the league in FIP) or Cliff Lee (leader in IP/G) as their Cy Young front-runner. Both candidates are worthy selections having tremendous years and I'm not going to argue against those choices. This article is about the Felix Hernandez vs. CC Sabathia debate that has overtaken the media recently. From my earlier comments it should be easy to tell who I believe should win the Cy Young Award and it's not even close. Here's some raw data for you to think about
Felix vs. CC
ERA: 2.39 vs. 3.03
FIP: 3.00 vs. 3.56
xFIP: 3.25 vs. 3.81
tERA: 2.98 vs. 3.32
SIERA: 3.17 vs. 3.77
K/9: 8.53 vs. 7.42
BB/9: 2.51 vs. 2.82
IP/G: 7.28 vs. 7.00
fWAR: 5.9 vs. 4.3
Not a single traditional or advanced stat listed above favors CC Sabathia over King Felix, even the normal ones that sports writers look at like ERA and K/9. In fact, the only statistic that supports CC Sabathia's candidacy is win loss record:
CC Sabathia: 19-6
Felix Hernandez: 11-11
Now, any sabermetrically astute fan of baseball would look at that statistic and immediately guess why Felix could have better rate states but a far worse win-loss record, but for those who aren't aware, here's the one and only reason:
Run Support:
CC Sabathia: 4.68 runs per start
Felix Hernandez: 2.61 runs per start
While CC Sabathia has the #1 offense in baseball backing him up, Felix Hernandez has had to endure playing for a team with a historically bad offensive output. The Mariners have been so bad offensively that they are on pace to score the fewest runs since the implementation of the DH rule. Their team wOBA is a measly .286 (league average is normally around .329) and their team OPS+ sits at 79, or 21% worse than the league average.
Of course, statistics like these might not register with those baseball fans stubborn enough in their high valuation of win totals, so let me break the data down further. Here are the total amount of games that each pitcher pitched with the different amounts of earned runs given up and the pitchers winning percentages in said games:
Felix Hernandez
0 ER: 8 (62.5%)
1 ER: 6 (66.6%)
2 ER: 8 (25.0%)
3 ER: 5 (0.0%)
4 ER: 1 (0.0%)
5 ER: 1 (0.0%)
6+ ER: 3 (0.0%)
CC Sabathia
0 ER: 5 (80.0%)
1 ER: 7 (85.7%)
2 ER: 4 (75.0%)
3 ER: 9 (55.6%)
4 ER: ---
5 ER: 5 (20.0%)
6+ ER: 1 (0.0%)
There are some striking observations to be made from these statistics:
- Felix Hernandez pitched 8 more games than CC Sabathia in which he gave up 2 ER or less yet came away with 2 fewer wins in those games. Whats even more striking about this stat is the fact that Hernandez has actually pitched more innings than Sabathia, so it's not like he's not going deep enough into games to earn the win.
- King Felix's winning percentage in games in which he surrendered 2 ER or less is a paltry 45.8% compared to Sabathia's 81.3%. What's even worse is that Felix has only won 64.3% of the games in which he has allowed 1 ER or less compared to CC's 83.3%.
- Felix Hernandez did not register a win in any game that he gave up 3 ER or more. CC Sabathia registered 6 wins in games like these.
- Felix Hernandez pitched 8 games in which he allowed 2 or less ER but registered a no-decision due to poor run support. CC Sabathia only had two similar no decisions.
- In total Felix pitched 10 games in which he gave up 3+ ER while Sabathia allowed 3+ ER 15 times. In those games Felix was 0-8 while CC was 6-5.
If those statistics don't make you realize how little wins actually mean when it comes to assessing the quality of a pitchers output I don't know what will. But I'll end my argument with this simple statistic: Felix Hernandez leads the league in win probability added (WPA) at 4.03, meaning that he's done the most of any pitcher in his league to lead his team to a win. Simply put King Felix's low win totals are a reflection of his teams offensive struggles and not his own pitching abilities.
One last note before I end this lengthy article. When it comes to ERA I support using it, in conjunction with other pitching statistics, to help choose a Cy Young winner. As a register of past performance during a small sample size or as an indicator of future performance it can be very misleading, but over the course of a whole year I think it is a somewhat accurate measure of what happened on the field. Just because a pitcher got a bit lucky during the year doesn't mean the results should be discounted when discussing who performed the best during the season. The award should ONLY be given out for results produced during the 2010 season, not for seasons before or for predicted future performance and as such luck should not be taken out of the equation entirely. I know it is an unpopular stance to take, but it's a belief that I cannot shake. Debate concerning the quality of a seasons worth of ERA, however, is a discussion for another day ...
No comments:
Post a Comment