I'm sending this message to the future. As I type this, it is actually Monday, Oct. 3. You now know who won the World Series while I'm just about 24 hours from seeing the Baltimore Orioles visit the Toronto Blue Jays for the AL wild-card game.
For the first time, I'm tasked with voting for a BBWAA postseason award and it's a doozy. It's the National League Cy Young Award.
First of all, you aren't allowed to use any postseason material in deciding because the ballot is due before the first pitch of the NL wild-card game. Again, I'm writing this on Oct. 3. Next, unlike in MVP voting, we don't receive instructions. So it's up to the voter to decide how to determine the best pitcher.
Another thing to get out of the way that leads into my method of making a subjective decision in a very tight race here: I won't be using the pitcher won/loss record at all. Sure, my top five guys will all have good records, but that's because it's a byproduct of being a good pitcher, not the primary indicator of who are the best pitchers.
This is generally where someone will yell at me that "a pitcher's job is to win," but that person is wrong. A pitcher can't win gam es by himself, especially not in today's climate of bullpen specialization. A pitcher's job is to put his team in the best position to win by allowing the fewest number of runs possible (ERA, ERA+). Along the way, the best pitchers do this for a high number of innings (IP, CG, SHO), as to take pressure off the bullpen. They also keep pressure off the defense by striking out batters (K, K/9), inducing weak contact (Soft hit percentage) and keeping runners off the bases (WHIP, H/9, BB/9).
You won't see me discussing things that I call predictive stats such as FIP, xFIP, BABIP, LOB% or the like. If someone is doing something unsustainable, I find these stats useful in predicting an upcoming backslide. What we're looking at now, however, is a completed body of work. Sorry, a pitcher who finished the season with something that looks unsustainable just, um, sustained it for the sea son. Much like the Texas Rangers ' record in one-run games, those wins are booked. There's no correction coming for the now-completed 2016 season. And this award isn't for the best pitcher in 2016 who is likely to have just as good a 2017 season.
Also, relievers are out absent an overly historic season, on account of working fewer innings.
The ballot has five spots and I'm to rank the pitchers 1-5. I've been following the race all year and the following players have a chance at cracking the top five on my ballot: Kyle Hendricks and Jon Lester , Chicago Cubs ; Max Scherzer and Tanner Roark , Washington Nationals ; Johnny Cueto and Madison Bumgarner , San Francisco Giants ; Clayton Kershaw , Los Angeles Dodgers ; Noah Syndergaard , New York Mets ; Jose Fernandez , Miami Marlins .
So you didn't even consider (insert player you like)?
Of course I did. I considered every decent pitcher in the NL. This was a work in progress throughout the season and I've been paying attention. I knew all year I had this vote, so I was watching with a keen eye. These are the best candidates in my view and it's my vote.
I will almost immediately eliminate Kershaw, though. He produced an extraordinary amount of value out of his 21 starts, but he only worked 149 innings. It's not his fault, but injuries never are and they often eliminate great players. I might have considered him at 149 if the ERA was below 1.00 or something -- and holy smokes the 172 strikeouts against 11 walks is already good enough -- but I didn't feel like he created a big enough gap to make up for such an innings shortfall. Others will disagree and that's their right.
So that's eight names f or five spots and I need a ranked top five. Let's run through some of the most important stats, in my view.
ERA
Hendricks won the ERA title at 2.13 and was followed by Lester at 2.44 and Syndergaard at 2.60. Scherzer seems like a favorite to win (in fact, my guess is you're reading this knowing that Scherzer just won it[1]), but he's the worst on my list here at 2.96.
In terms of ERA+, Hendricks is at 188, with Lester second at 164 and Syndergaard third at 158. That's a ballpark-adjusted figure, so it does ding the Giants' duo a bit, but not too badly -- in fact, Bumgarner ranked fourth in both ERA and ERA+.
In terms of run prevention alone, Hendricks has a pretty big lead.
Innings
Scherzer worked an NL-best 228 1/3 innings this season, which is 38 1/3 more than Hendricks' 190 and Syndergaard is even further back at 183 2/3 (Fernandez, sadly, managed 182 1/3 before his tragic death). Bumgarner was at 226 2/3 while Cueto worked 219 2/3. Roark and Lester each topped 200.
Lester and Hendricks each had a pair of complete games while Cueto had five and Bumgarner had four.
Something to ponder: The Cubs scaled back workload for their starting pitchers down the stretch because they had that luxury and wanted their guys fresh for the playoff run. Should that give them a pass here? I'm inclined to say no. Workload is workload and it doesn't matter why.
Soft hit percentage
One area where I would be willing to give the Cubs' guys a plus is soft-hit percentage and here's why: They were playing in front of a historically great defense this season. Knowing that, sometimes it was less important to strike opposing hitters out than it was to simply induce weak contact. Pitching to the defense isn't bad at all when you trust it. It can limit pitch workload. Guess who led all of baseball? Hendricks, inducing weak contact more than a quarter of the time (25.1). Roark is second here at 23.1 percent. Scherzer is at 22.2 p ercent (fourth in the NL). Syndergaard was sixth, Fernandez 12th, Cueto 13th, Bumgarner 14th and Lester 17th.
Missing bats
When you don't want to trust the defense, you go strike hitters out. That matters because nothing good comes for the offense in almost any case when there's a strikeout. Scherzer led the league by a mile (284-253). Fernandez and Bumgarner each had 250 or more.
In terms of the rate, Fernandez actually had the fifth-highest K/9 (12.49) in MLB[2] history after two Randy Johnson seasons, one Pedro Martinez and one Kerry Wood. Scherzer was at 11.19, Syndergaard 10.68, Bumgarner 9.97 and Lester 8.75.
Swinging strike percentage (the number of times an opposing hitter swung and missed) again has Scherzer at the top, followed by Kershaw, Fernandez and Syndergaard.
On the flip-side, what about freezing opposing hitters to where they don't even swing? Hendricks led looking strike percentage, with Roark seventh, Fernandez eighth and no one else here in the top 15.
Keeping players off base
Scherzer leads in WHIP by a nose over Hendricks (0.968 to 0.979). Lester is third and Bumgarner is fourth. Cueto is eighth and Fernandez is ninth.
Top 10 in the lowest hit rate from this group: Scherzer (second), Hendricks (third), Lester (fourth), Bumgarner (sixth), Fernandez (eighth), Roark (ninth).
Top 10 in the lowest walk rate from this group: Cueto (third), Hendricks (sixth), Syndergaard (eighth), Bumgarner (10th).
I've seen enough now to clip Roark and I think I have to do so to Syndergaard and Fernandez, too. Roark just wasn't up in the top two or three of the categories I hold in high regard often enough. On Syndergaard and Fernandez, it was workload. It's rare for Cy Young winners with fewer than 200 innings pitched to win and these two weren't close. In fact, they are further away fr0m Scherzer than Kershaw is from them, so if not Kershaw, I can't justify one of these two.
Hendricks is, of course, 10 innings short of 200, but he also had a huge lead in ERA and ERA+, not to mention leading in soft contact and being right with Scherzer in WHIP. So that separates him from Syndergaard and Fernandez and keeps him in the mix.
So I have my five names: Scherzer, Hendricks, Lester, Cueto, Bumgarner.
Remember how bad the Giants were in the second half, to the point that they almost missed the playoffs? Bumgarner had a 3.80 ERA after the break. I can't say I love that. He might be number five.
I wanted to look at win probability added (WPA) because it figures how much the pitcher's moved their team's chances of winning games over the course of the season.
Cueto was first, barely nudging out Lester. Among our remaining group of five, Hendricks was next (fourth overall), then Scherzer (fifth) and Bumgarner (ninth).
As things stand, I'm going with Scherzer first and I feel like Hendricks has established himself as my two, but I have a few questions before going to my ballot.
Why is Scherzer's ERA so much higher than Hendricks' -- and even Lester's -- and what's with that home run total? Well, it's because he had some stinkers. Scherzer had five starts in which he allowed at least five earned runs while coughing up an NL-high 31 homers.
Is that really our Cy Young winner in such a tight race? The guy who allowed the most home runs and had five pretty bad outings? I'm having second thoughts.
Hendricks didn't allow more than four earned runs in a single game. Again, Scherzer did it five times (Lester and Cueto did it four times, too). Hendricks allowed 15 homers to Scherzer's 31. The last time someone won the NL Cy Young while leading the league in home runs allowed was 1971, when Fergie Jenkins did it (he led the league with 24 wins and that's surely why he won it).
So I've got two totally different monsters here. A huge ERA lead while neck and neck in WHIP for Hendricks. He has a shortfall in innings and strikeouts, but on the latter point it should be mitigated by his ability to induce soft contact in front of an elite defense and freeze opposing hitters by getting looking strikes. And I just can't get past the difference in stinkers or the home runs.
1. Hendricks
2. Scherzer
3. Cueto
4. Lester
5. Bumgarner
I'm still not 100 percent happy with it. What a tough vote. Could've gone probably 50 different ways, but a decision had to be made and it's time for the playoffs to start. Hope they are fun.
References
- ^ you're reading this knowing that Scherzer just won it (www.cbssports.com)
- ^ MLB (www.cbssports.com)
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar