The Cy-pothetical Young Award: 1912-1945

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by timn1

I dunno guys, I guess I'm just contrary, and I agree that Johnson was the greatest pitcher of all time, but . . . I don't see the whole "if he hadn't been on such wretched teams" argument.

I figure the Senators' W/L record while he was on the team (August 2, 1907 through 1927) at 1531-1559 - that's .49546.

After that horrible 1907 season, where he was with them for only two months, they had 10 winning and 10 losing seasons during his time there (and 3 of the losing seasons were 76-77, 75-78, and 74-79). From 1908-1927 they finished first twice and last once. They finished 1-4 in the standings 11 times, 5-8 9 times.

Also, the 1-0 games: should we give him wins in all 26 that he lost? How many 1-0 games did he win anyway?

I'm not saying the Senators teams were great but they weren't horrible - just middle-of-the-road. I don't see you get many more wins for Johnson unless you put him on a team that played .600 ball for 20 years (in other words, the Yankees after 1920).

For comparison I looked up the W/L records of Cy Young's teams between 1890-1911 (in partial seasons including the team's record only while he was there) and I got 1582-1426, .526. I figure Pete Alexander's teams at 1470-1314, .528. Definitely better teams but not by a huge margin.

How does this translate to wins?
If you take the 3090 games (1531-1559) the Nats played when Johnson was with them and give them a .525 Winning PCT instead of the real .49546, that would be 1622 wins instead of 1531. That's a "win shortfall" of 91 wins over the 20+ seasons. During his career Johnson won 27% of the team's wins (417 of 1531). 27% of the 91-win shortfall would be 24 or 25 extra wins, just over one game a year. That's not nothing, but doesn't transform his stature (after all, he's already the best ever).

Tim

Interesting analysis, Tim. The Nationals were only truly wretched his first five years, with two last-place and three seventh-place finishes. After Clark Griffith arrived in 1912, they had scrappy good-defense, good-baserunning, fairly competitive teams before assembling a truly world-class squad for the pennant seasons of 1924-25. Question: if Walter might have won an extra 25 games in his career with better teams, does that mean he would he have also lost 25 fewer games? If so, that would be pretty transformative for his career winning %. Of course, as you say, how much better does he need to be?

[Touch'EmAll]

Interesting info I have posted years ago, but a refresher ...

These are consecutive head-to-head appearances of the two pitchers (as both were in American League and played against each other):

August 14, 1915 - Ruth defeats Johnson 4-3
April 17, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 5-1
June 1, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 1-0
August 15, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 1-0 in 13 innings
September 9, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 2-1
September 12, 1916 - Johnson defeats Ruth 4-3

During 1916 and 1917, Ruth compiled won-lost records of 23-12 and 24-13 with ERAs of 1.75 and 2.01

In 1916, Ruth led the league in ERA and Shutouts (9) and in 1917, in complete games (35).

Johnson put up some eye-popping numbers also. But his stats weren't as good as Ruth's. Over the same two years, Johnson was 25-20 and 23-16 with ERAs of 1.89 and 2.30

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

Interesting info I have posted years ago, but a refresher ...

These are consecutive head-to-head appearances of the two pitchers (as both were in American League and played against each other):

August 14, 1915 - Ruth defeats Johnson 4-3
April 17, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 5-1
June 1, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 1-0
August 15, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 1-0 in 13 innings
September 9, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 2-1
September 12, 1916 - Johnson defeats Ruth 4-3

During 1916 and 1917, Ruth compiled won-lost records of 23-12 and 24-13 with ERAs of 1.75 and 2.01

In 1916, Ruth led the league in ERA and Shutouts (9) and in 1917, in complete games (35).

Johnson put up some eye-popping numbers also. But his stats weren't as good as Ruth's. Over the same two years, Johnson was 25-20 and 23-16 with ERAs of 1.89 and 2.30

Wow great comparison and supervising results
Just shows the greatness of both

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Wow great comparison and supervising results
Just shows the greatness of both

And let's not forget that Ruth won two games in the 1916 WS as Boston defeated Brooklyn.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Yoda

And let's not forget that Ruth won two games in the 1916 WS as Boston defeated Brooklyn.

Hey John - I think that Ruth won 1 game in the 1916 Series.

He won 2 in the 1918 Series.

I wish that Carrigan would have used him in the 1915 Series. He was 18-8 during the regular season

[Leon]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Wow great comparison and supervising results
Just shows the greatness of both

+1. Cool chart comparison.
.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

Interesting info I have posted years ago, but a refresher ...

These are consecutive head-to-head appearances of the two pitchers (as both were in American League and played against each other):

August 14, 1915 - Ruth defeats Johnson 4-3
April 17, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 5-1
June 1, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 1-0
August 15, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 1-0 in 13 innings
September 9, 1916 - Ruth defeats Johnson 2-1
September 12, 1916 - Johnson defeats Ruth 4-3

During 1916 and 1917, Ruth compiled won-lost records of 23-12 and 24-13 with ERAs of 1.75 and 2.01

In 1916, Ruth led the league in ERA and Shutouts (9) and in 1917, in complete games (35).

Johnson put up some eye-popping numbers also. But his stats weren't as good as Ruth's. Over the same two years, Johnson was 25-20 and 23-16 with ERAs of 1.89 and 2.30

Good analysis, but as noted, WJ's team was not considered as good. Can't be done of course, but how do you think those games may have turned out had they switched the teams they were pitching for?

[cjedmonton]

For the record, I’m not suggesting that Young was the greatest ever. Can’t imagine any scenario where it’s not comfortably The Big Train.

The thread title was just a cheeky play on words to debate who should have been recognized as each league’s top pitcher if such an award existed then.

[timn1]

Hank, I see what you mean - 25 games difference would make his W/L PCT 442 - 254 (.635) instead of .599, which would probably be enough to silence silence all the arguments for anyone else as GOAT.

I was mainly reacting against the "he'd 'a won 4.5 more games a year!" stuff, which is just wacky. If we play that 4.5/year out over 20 years, we get a pitcher who goes 517-179 with a .743 W/L.

Lefty Grove went .680 and Whitey Ford .690 with some of the greatest teams in history behind them - that's pretty much the upper limit for a pitcher's career W/PCT. Grove's teams were at .578, Ford's teams PCT were at .600. Notice a pattern? The greatest pitchers seem to have a PCT about 90-105 points higher than their teams. Johnson's is right in line with that. If his team was holding him back a whole bunch, we would expect that difference to be larger.

PITCHER W/L PCT TEAM W/L PCT
Alexander .643 .528
Johnson .599 .495
Grove .680 .578
Young .619 .526
Ford .690 .600
Mathewson .665 .576

This chart suggests that it was Alexander, not Johnson, who outperformed his teams by the greatest amount.

(I wonder how that would play out with all the pitchers in the HOF...

Here are a few I chose at random:

Drysdale .557 .547 (ugly)
Mussina .638 .559 (not bad)
Maddux .609 .554
Gomez .649 .635
Lyons .530 .458

Thought experiment: swap Lyons for Gomez in 1931. Gomez goes 137-153 for the White Sox (slightly better than the team) and visits the HOF as a paying guest in his later years. Lyons goes 340-150 for the Yankees (about as much better than his teams than he was in real life) and is thought of as one of the GOATs.

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Interesting analysis, Tim. The Nationals were only truly wretched his first five years, with two last-place and three seventh-place finishes. After Clark Griffith arrived in 1912, they had scrappy good-defense, good-baserunning, fairly competitive teams before assembling a truly world-class squad for the pennant seasons of 1924-25. Question: if Walter might have won an extra 25 games in his career with better teams, does that mean he would he have also lost 25 fewer games? If so, that would be pretty transformative for his career winning %. Of course, as you say, how much better does he need to be?