Al Yellon
Editor
It's Gotta Be The Hair - May 15
Grant Brisbee
Editor
Tarasco Sauce - May 16
Jeff Sullivan
Editor
Mission Accomplished - May 16
Rob Neyer
National Baseball Editor
Baseball is Unpredictable - May 12
Dan Moore
Contributor
Joey Votto And The Twilight Of The Giant First Basemen - Apr 14
Jason Brannon
Hot Corner Scribe
Len Kasper Has Been Over Into The Future... - May 15
Jim Baker
Contributor
eBay Item Of The Day - May 15
Marc Normandin
Contributor
The Royals And Pitcher Development - May 15
Wendy Thurm
Contributor
On Being Young And Brash In The Social Media Age - May 12
Clayton Kershaw won the Pitcher's Triple Crown this season, which makes him the huge favorite to win the National League Cy Young Award today. But does he deserve it?
Nov 17, 2011 - Please tell me if I'm wrong about this, but I think we already know who's going to win the National League Cy Young Award.
Granted, it's not likely to be unamimous, like in the American League. But I think it's probably Clayton Kershaw's unless a significant number of voters decide to get fancy on us.
See, Clayton Kershaw won the Pitcher's Triple Crown: he led the National League in ERA, he led the National League in strikeouts, and he co-led the National League in wins. Kershaw's Triple Crown was the 13th in the Cy Young Era, and the first 12 all led, whether explicitly or not, to Cy Young Awards. Including Justin Verlander's this week.
With all due respect, at least some Cy Young voters are going to look at Kershaw's Triple Crown and immediately stop thinking about other candidates.
Usually that's perfectly fine. Usually the guy who wins the Triple Crown really is the best pitcher. Looking at the list, I don't really see any non-deserving Cy Young winners. Well, except for maybe one: Jake Peavy, just four years ago. National League West power pitcher in a pitcher's park ... sound familiar? I argued at the time that Brandon Webb deserved serious consideration. Webb did finish second, but Peavy was listed first on all 32 ballots.
This year's Brandon Webb? Roy Halladay, probably.
Halladay won 19 games to Kershaw's 21, and his ERA was just .07 higher. While pitching one-third of an inning more than Kershaw, Halladay actually gave up one fewer run; Kershaw's tiny ERA lead is due to him giving up seven unearned runs next to Halladay's four. Kershaw struck out 28 more than Halladay, but also walked 21 more. Kershaw gave up 15 home runs, Halladay only 10.
Kershaw pitches in a mild pitcher's park; Halladay pitches in a mild hitter's park.
When you consider all of the above, do you really want to argue that Kershaw actually pitched better than Halladay?
I do not.
Clayton Kershaw's going to win the Cy Young Award. It won't be unanimous. But he's going to win. And I'm not at all convinced that he should.
18 comments
21
Feb 1
3
Dec 6
12
Nov 22
3
Nov 22
43
Nov 21
13
Nov 21
3
Nov 21
21
Nov 17
33
Nov 17
2
Nov 17
Mickey Hatcher, Angels Hitting Coach, Relieved Of Duties
Vance Worley Has 'Soreness', Will Miss Wednesday Start
Justin Morneau Will Be Activated From DL Wednesday
Manny Ramirez Rehab Assignment Will Start Saturday In Albuquerque
Jon Jay Heading To Disabled List; Shane Robinson Recalled
Troy Tulowitzki Day-To-Day With Deep Leg Bruise
Matt Kemp Goes On 15-Day DL With Sore Hamstring
Jeff Niemann Likely Missing 'A Few Months' With Leg Injury
VIDEO: Bryce Harper's First Career Home Run
Torii Hunter Placed On Restricted List Following Son's Arrest
More News »
Comments
So part of this argument
is that Halladay deserves the award because his defense committed fewer errors behind him? …
Most people use statistics the way a drunk would use a lamppost—for support, and not for illumination.
www.duwanis.com
by duwanis on Nov 17, 2011 8:33 AM EST reply actions
Well
Expect for the home runs, these all sam to be pretty minuscule differences. And although it is not a great tool for player evaluation, Kershaw deserves to be rewarded for his ERA (and to a much lesser extent, wins). In my opinion at least.
Ryan Miller was the true MVP. See my profile for rant.
by Jsz on Nov 17, 2011 9:39 AM EST reply actions
I go Halladay
Kershaw led the NL in ERA, WHIP, K’s, and co-led in wins. Looks nice.
But like Rob, I have no idea why people value ERA over RA. Error assignment by scorekeepers is dubious, and I have no idea why pitchers shouldn’t be penalized for all runs anyways. Giving up a homer after an error on a potential 3rd out is still a mistake by the pitcher that could have been prevented. Plus the fact that if we’re not going to try and factor in defense in ERA, errors shouldn’t count either.
Halladay leads Kershaw in fWAR, bWAR, FIP, xFIP, RA, and WPA. Also even Kershaw’s win total is deceiving for old school voters.
The Phillies went 24-8 in Halladay’s starts. The Dodgers went 23-10 in Kershaw’s. Another illustration of the dumb pitcher win stat – despite the 2 win lead, Kershaw wasn’t even more of a “winner” than Halladay.
It’s a close battle, but any look beyond simple stats shows Halladay was a bit more effective.
by todmod on Nov 17, 2011 10:07 AM EST reply actions
How about quality of competition?
Halladay didn’t get to face the Giants or Padres as many times as Kershaw did. I bet if Roy and Kershaw had the same opponents and ballparks, the numbers would be a little different.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
by JaysfanDL on Nov 17, 2011 10:35 AM EST reply actions
Halladay
did he have to go up against Tim Lincecum 5 times and go 5-0 against him?
Ray Guilfoyle
www.faketeams.com
www.minorleagueball.com
www.mlbdailydish.com
by Ray Guilfoyle on Nov 17, 2011 12:26 PM EST up reply actions
how about measuring quaity of
opposing pitchers in addition to quality of competition. Slightly different.
Not as many ace starters that Halladay would have had to face in the NL East as Kershaw did in the the NL West, and most-Lee and Hamels- are on the Phillies.
Hanson and Johnson are the only other aces in the division besides Strasburg, and all 3 were hurt at one point or another.
Ray Guilfoyle
www.faketeams.com
www.minorleagueball.com
www.mlbdailydish.com
by Ray Guilfoyle on Nov 17, 2011 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
that only matters for win-loss record
A pitcher has to face the opposing team’s hitters, that will have the effect on his other numbers. You don’t think facing the Giants terrible offence (and Brisbee has noted it was almost historically bad this year) doesn’t improve Kershaw’s other numbers?
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
by JaysfanDL on Nov 17, 2011 2:31 PM EST up reply actions
The opposing pitcher doesn’t make a damn bit of difference. Lincecum is not a feared hitter.
"Don't you think it's strange that you'll make more money than President Hoover this year?"
"Why not? I had a better year than he did." - G.H. Ruth
Posting pictures
by Andrew GM on Nov 17, 2011 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
none?
why the hell not? he’s a damn good pitcher, is he not? Going up against an ace rather than a 4 or 5 means something, no?
Ray Guilfoyle
www.faketeams.com
www.minorleagueball.com
www.mlbdailydish.com
by Ray Guilfoyle on Nov 17, 2011 3:19 PM EST up reply actions
so
the quality of competition has nothing to do with what starting pitcher he had to face, just the lineup? Tell that to the ‘88 A’s team. They had a superior lineup compared to the Dodgers and lost.
Ray Guilfoyle
www.faketeams.com
www.minorleagueball.com
www.mlbdailydish.com
by Ray Guilfoyle on Nov 17, 2011 3:30 PM EST up reply actions
Kershaw didn't go up against Lincecum.
He went up against the Giants batting order, which was pitiful.
by Darklighter on Nov 17, 2011 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
Actually
Jay JAffe at BAseball Prospectus compared the actual competition faced by Kershaw and Halladay, includingballpark factors, and found that Kershaw faced a slightly tougher group pof hitters than did Halladay. So it is fine to speculate but . . . (The article is behind a paywall, so not linked, but if you belong you can find it.
by Moose or Squirrel on Nov 17, 2011 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
NL East is even weaker
Excepting the two teams these guys pitched on, the NL West teams scored 11% more runs than the NL East teams. The Marlins, Braves and Nats all had trouble scoring this year.
Tony LaRussa- resident genius
by putmeincoach on Nov 17, 2011 5:17 PM EST up reply actions
It's close, but...
I still have to go with Kershaw. 28 more Ks compared to 19 more walks, a lower WHIP, 163 ERA+ compared to Halladay’s minutely better 164 ERA+, 34 fewer hits allowed (essentially one per game). Halladay had a bit better run support (.37). Kershaw only allowed 14 steals, Halladay 19 (yes, the catcher is a piece here, but 9 were caught running on Kershaw and only 5 caught running on Halladay). OPS against was only .554 for Kershaw vs. .582 for Halladay, even w/ K giving up those five extra homers.
I am just not sure Halladay was any more effective. Kershaw would get my vote but it is so very close. It’s remarkable that over the course of the season, Kershaw threw one more total pitch. Talk about close…
by sportsczar on Nov 17, 2011 12:15 PM EST reply actions
I'm a Dodger fan
so I wear my bias on my sleeve, but it’s just such a close race and Kershaw was such a great story this year. Halladay’s had his glory, he’s won two Cy Youngs and will surely win more, and he’s a virtual lock for the Hall. Kershaw’s rapid ascent to elite pitcherdom is remarkable, he’s a standup individual on and off the field and a great teammate, and was one of two bright spots in an otherwise painfully dismal season for the Dodgers. It’s not hard to make a statistical case for him, and as much as I respect the value of advanced stats, the Triple Crown is the Triple Crown. Just give the kid the damn award.
by theterminizer on Nov 17, 2011 12:38 PM EST reply actions
The Cy Young is supposed to be about who the best pitcher of the year is.
Not about who had a great story, or who has or has not had his glory.
by Darklighter on Nov 17, 2011 4:10 PM EST up reply actions
On potential underserving Triple Crown winners
What about Juan Marichal in 1965 when Sandy Koufax won the triple crown?
by Dex on Nov 17, 2011 3:06 PM EST reply actions
Neyer, you need to fix your article....
…but not this one. As usual, we agree on this (though I’m a Dodger fan and I do enjoy seeing Kershaw get some attention). You are right in saying that Halladay would make a fitting winner. He is more deserving than Kershaw. With that said, you were COMPLETELY WRONG a few months ago…
http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2011/2/23/2009584/mlb-players-of-the-decade-starting-pitchers
You never mentioned Kershaw in this article. He deserves to be in the conversation more than most of the people you included. Neyer, you should save yourself a tiny bit of embarassment and throw his name in that article. After ten years, it would be a bummer to go back and realize you didn’t even mention the pitcher of the decade.
by Real Tom on Nov 18, 2011 1:02 AM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed