NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-29-2018, 11:18 PM
ls7plus ls7plus is offline
Larry
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Southfield, Michigan
Posts: 1,765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60 View Post
Disagree. When someone is overwhelming elected it means a lot. Out of 226 voters, with the chance to vote for anyone in baseball's history, Matty had 205 vote for him. That is significant. To put it in prospective, Ruth only got 10 more votes. A guy getting 20 or 16 votes vs. 10 is irrelevant. Matty getting more votes than WaJo doesn't mean he is better, it just means he is one of the greatest pitchers of all time.

The next year with the top 5 not taking votes away, Young barely made the cut. He only got 153 votes out of 201 and finished 3rd in voting, behind Lajoie and Speaker (He had finished 8th in 1936 behind Lajoie and Speaker) again.

I believe the award was named for Cy Young because he had won the most games at a time when wins were the most important stat. I think today we know better. Jacob deGrom is currently 8-9. By past standards, no one would vote for him because there are several pitchers with 17, 16, 15 wins and winning records. Today, he is a serious candidate to win the Cy Young because we don't value wins, but value ERA, WHIP and adjusting them for things like park, team defense and level of competition.
And here I thought that you didn't believe in the newer sabermetric analytical methods!

All good points, although having played fast pitch hardball in two summer leagues on quite good teams throughout my teens, in high school and in an over 30 fast-pitch hardball league in my early '40's comprised primarily of good former high school, college and professional players (3 former minor leaguers, and one former major leaguer, Jeff Hamilton of the Los Angeles Dodgers), I would argue that there is a talent to winning which a good starting pitcher must possess to be successful. It arises out of the fact that even the best of starters don't always have their best stuff (in fact, that is probably true the majority of the time), and they are going to have to get through several tight spots in virtually every game to secure the win. These primarily include multiple runners on base with less than two out, just by way of example. The "talent" I am speaking of is primarily psychological: the starter must remain calm and poised, and execute his pitches to successfully maneuver through the inning intact. Pure "stuff" frequently doesn't get it done. See Jeff Smardjia (sp?), former Cub and current Giant, who has great stuff, yet it never seems to translate to many wins. So I personally would not agree with Brian Kenny of "MLB Now" that the win is dead.

While it cannot be refuted that DeGrom has pitched extremely well, and he certainly does possess this "talent," as an old school fan, it troubles me that it has simply not translated into wins. Steve Carlton went 27 and 10 with a 1.98 ERA in 1972 with a Phillies team that only won 59 games total all season. Walter Johnson's Senators were rarely anywhere near the cream of the crop. Check out Koufax's Dodgers teams from '63, '65, and '66--subtract his won/lost record, and it will be seen that they were decent without him, but he primarily carried them to the World Series.

My point is that as long as it is the "Cy Young Award," the pitcher's performance who wins it should correlate to wins. DeGrom's hasn't. Yes, I know the follow-up argument: "but that hasn't been his fault." My response is that it is not a question of fault--the performance either translates to a significant number of additional wins for the player's team or it does not--fault is irrelevant. What Young did was WIN, WIN, and WIN, over a very long period of time. IMHO, Leon is absolutely correct when he states that the volume of success is meaningful. See the ongoing discussion on MLB Now re the volume of innings as a factor in winning versus not winning the award.

Just sayin',

Larry

Last edited by ls7plus; 09-29-2018 at 11:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-30-2018, 07:31 AM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,895
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ls7plus View Post
And here I thought that you didn't believe in the newer sabermetric analytical methods!

All good points, although having played fast pitch hardball in two summer leagues on quite good teams throughout my teens, in high school and in an over 30 fast-pitch hardball league in my early '40's comprised primarily of good former high school, college and professional players (3 former minor leaguers, and one former major leaguer, Jeff Hamilton of the Los Angeles Dodgers), I would argue that there is a talent to winning which a good starting pitcher must possess to be successful. It arises out of the fact that even the best of starters don't always have their best stuff (in fact, that is probably true the majority of the time), and they are going to have to get through several tight spots in virtually every game to secure the win. These primarily include multiple runners on base with less than two out, just by way of example. The "talent" I am speaking of is primarily psychological: the starter must remain calm and poised, and execute his pitches to successfully maneuver through the inning intact. Pure "stuff" frequently doesn't get it done. See Jeff Smardjia (sp?), former Cub and current Giant, who has great stuff, yet it never seems to translate to many wins. So I personally would not agree with Brian Kenny of "MLB Now" that the win is dead.

While it cannot be refuted that DeGrom has pitched extremely well, and he certainly does possess this "talent," as an old school fan, it troubles me that it has simply not translated into wins. Steve Carlton went 27 and 10 with a 1.98 ERA in 1972 with a Phillies team that only won 59 games total all season. Walter Johnson's Senators were rarely anywhere near the cream of the crop. Check out Koufax's Dodgers teams from '63, '65, and '66--subtract his won/lost record, and it will be seen that they were decent without him, but he primarily carried them to the World Series.

My point is that as long as it is the "Cy Young Award," the pitcher's performance who wins it should correlate to wins. DeGrom's hasn't. Yes, I know the follow-up argument: "but that hasn't been his fault." My response is that it is not a question of fault--the performance either translates to a significant number of additional wins for the player's team or it does not--fault is irrelevant. What Young did was WIN, WIN, and WIN, over a very long period of time. IMHO, Leon is absolutely correct when he states that the volume of success is meaningful. See the ongoing discussion on MLB Now re the volume of innings as a factor in winning versus not winning the award.

Just sayin',

Larry
I agree with your points, but I would also add that run support is an important part of the equation. In 1968 Bob Gibson had a 1.12 ERA and still lost 9 games. It wasn't because he wasn't on a good team, but because they happened to not provide him with support in some games.

On 4/21 deGrom went 7 inn, 0 ER, ND
5/23 7 Inn, 0 ER, ND
5/28 7 inn, 1 ER, ND
6/2 7 inn, 1 ER, ND
7/6 8 inn, 1 ER, ND
7/11 8 inn, 0 ER, ND
8/28 8 inn, 1 ER, ND
9/3 6 inn, 1 ER, ND
At some point, you have to give a pitcher some credit for pitching great despite not getting a win. In today's game, I have to give a pitcher credit for 6-8 inning starts with holding the other team to 0 or 1 runs.

I don't hold to one stat or advanced metric, but I try to look at the whole picture. I also apply my experience playing and watching the game and I do value wins more than most. For most of the season, I have had Scherzer ahead of deGrom, but looking at the whole season, I believe deGrom is the best pitcher in the NL this season. Felix Hernandez won a Cy Young at 13-12 and I believe deGrom will win one at 10-9.

As far as Young, wins is a factor, but what about losses, earned runs and hits? I value peak as well as career. In my opinion he is 3rd behind WaJo and Matty, so I do give him a lot of credit for his longevity. I just give 2 guys more because of a combination of longevity and peak.

Last edited by rats60; 09-30-2018 at 07:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-30-2018, 07:53 AM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

Didn't Johnson win 38 games by the score of 1-0?
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-30-2018, 03:56 PM
Hankphenom Hankphenom is offline
Hank Thomas
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrysloate View Post
Didn't Johnson win 38 games by the score of 1-0?
Yes. He won 38 and lost 26 1-0 games. Alexander is next with 17 1-0 wins.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
T206 Mathewson & Johnson yanks12025 Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 10 06-19-2013 05:03 PM
The big three: Mathewson, Johnson, Young Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 39 11-30-2002 08:14 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:42 AM.


ebay GSB