What is the Cy Young Award?

by LeeTro on Aug 13, 2010 9:31 PM EDT

The Cy Young Award is awarded to the best pitcher in each league each year. However, 'best' has two possible definitions: best results (Rally WAR) or most talent (FIP). Some years it's not a factor, as the same guy leads both categories. When 2 different pitchers lead a category, what mode of thinking have the voters tended to select?

Here are the NL Cy Young Award winners, along with 4 other categories. A 'y' indicates the award winner leading that category. FIP Leader is the lowest FIP amongst qualified starters, and the number in parentheses is the difference between the leader and the winner of the award. Below 2nd is the margin between the FIP leader and the 2nd lowest FIP. The same concept applies to the Rally side.

NL	Winner	FIP Leader (Diff)	Below 2nd	Rally Leader (Diff)	Above 2nd
2009	Lincecum	y	0.43	y	0.3
2008	Lincecum	y	0.39	y	0.5
2007	Peavy	y	0.37	y	0.1
2006	Webb	y	0.12	y	(Arroyo) 0
2005	Carpenter	Clemens (0.03)	0.02	Clemens (2.4)	0.8
2004	Clemens	Johnson (0.81)	0.35	Johnson (2.2)	1.1
2003	Gagne	Prior	0.17	Prior (1.9)	0.3
2002	Johnson	Schilling (0.26)	0.26	y	2
2001	Johnson	y	0.92	y	1.1
2000	Johnson	y	0.64	y	1.1
1999	Johnson	y	0.38	y	1.8
1998	Glavine	Brown (1.27)	0.48	Brown (2.8)	1.9
1997	Martinez	y	0.04	y	0.9
1996	Smoltz	y	0.09	Brown (1.4)	1.2
1995	Maddux	y	0.61	y	3.9
1994	Maddux	y	0.37	y	2.6
1993	Maddux	y	0.08	Rijo (2.4)	2.4
1992	Maddux	y	0.12	y	2.4
1991	Glavine	Cone (0.54)	0.01	y	1.9
1990	Drabek	Gooden (0.84)	0.39	Whitson (2.3)	0.2
1989	Davis	Hershiser	0.18	Hershiser (2.5)	0.3
1988	Hershiser	Ojeda (0.82)	0.18	y	1.5
1987	Bedrosian	Ryan	0.47	Hershiser (4.1)	0.1
1986	Scott	y	0.62	y	1.7
1985	Gooden	y	0.45	y	4.2
1984	Sutcliffe	Gooden	0.92	Gooden (1.7)	0.2
1983	Denny	Hammaker (0.30)	0.08	y	0.5
1982	Carlton	y	0.01	Rogers (2.7)	1.3
1981	Valenzuela	Gullickson (0.33)	0.17	y	(Carlton) 0
1980	Carlton	y	0.47	y	3.4
1979	Sutter	Richard	0.9	Niekro (2.1)	0.7
1978	G. Perry	Richard (0.12)	0.08	Niekro (4.4)	2.6
1977	Carlton	Rogers (0.55)	0.02	Reuschel (2.9)	0.2
1976	Jones	Seaver (0.70)	0.29	Montefusco (1.6)	0.3
1975	Seaver	y	0.07	y	(Jones) 0
1974	Marshall	Matlack (0.17)	0.17	Matlack (5.5)	1.1
1973	Seaver			y	3.3
1972	Carlton			y	4.6
1971	Jenkins			y	(Seaver) 0
1970	Gibson			y	0.6
1969	Seaver			Gibson (3.4)	2
1968	Gibson			y	4.4
1967	McCormick			Bunning (3.4)	1.6

The FIP leader was chosen 18 of the 36 years and the Rally WAR leader was chosen 25 out of the 43 years. If a pitcher led both categories, they won the award 15 of the 22 years, and the award winner led neither category 13 of the 36 years. For the NL, the Rally WAR leader was chosen 58% to FIP's 50%. The American League has the same trend.

AL	Winner	FIP Leader	Below 2nd	Rally Leader	Above 2nd
2009	Greinke	y	0.47	y	2.2
2008	Lee	y	0.2	y	0.8
2007	Sabathia	Beckett (0.06)	0.06	y	0.2
2006	Santana	y	0.25	y	1.6
2005	Colon	Santana (0.95)	0.3	Santana (1.9)	0.8
2004	Santana	y	0.19	y	1
2003	Halladay	Martinez (1.02)	0.84	y	0.1
2002	Zito	Martinez (1.63)	0.73	Halladay (0.4)	0.3
2001	Clemens	Mussina (0.37)	0.1	Mussina (1.1)	0.6
2000	Martinez	y	1.33	y	4.5
1999	Martinez	y	1.86	y	2.6
1998	Clemens	y	0.75	y	0.6
1997	Clemens	y	0.57	y	2.6
1996	Hentgen	Appier (0.55)	0.04	y	0.7
1995	Johnson	y	1.4	y	1.6
1994	Cone	Johnson (0.62)	0.19	y	0.2
1993	McDowell	Appier (0.71)	0.15	Appier (4.3)	0.4
1992	Eckersley	Clemens	0.06	Clemens (4.9)	0.3
1991	Clemens	y	0.18	y	0.5
1990	Welch	Clemens (2.01)	0.56	Clemens (7.0)	2
1989	Saberhagen	y	0.06	y	2.8
1988	Viola	Clemens (0.78)	0.63	Gubicza (0.3)	0.3
1987	Clemens	y	0.34	y	0.8
1986	Clemens	y	0.3	Higuera (0.5)	0.5
1985	Saberhagen	y	0.27	y	0.2
1984	Hernandez	M. Witt	0.09	Stieb (2.9)	1.5
1983	Hoyt	Righetti (0.46)	0.25	Stieb (2.7)	1.1
1982	Vuckovich	Koosman (0.96)	0.11	Stieb (4.1)	1.6
1981	Fingers	Barker	0.37	Blyleven (0.8)	0.7
1980	Stone	May (1.05)	0.16	Burns (2.9)	0.9
1979	Flanagan	Guidry (0.22)	0.07	Eckersley (3.2)	0.3
1978	Guidry	y	0.52	y	1
1977	Lyle	Guidry	0.03	Ryan (4.7)	0.4
1976	Palmer	Blue (0.76)	0.15	Fidrych (2.1)	0.8
1975	Palmer	Tanana (0.47)	0.47	Tanana (0.2)	0.2
1974	Hunter	Blyleven (0.80)	0.39	G. Perry (1.8)	0.6
1973	Palmer			Blyleven (3.1)	1.3
1972	G. Perry			y	0.8
1971	Blue			Wood (1.9)	1.9
1970	J. Perry			McDowell (4.4)	1.8
1969	Cuellar/McLain			McLain (3.2)	1.2
1968	McLain			Tiant (1.3)	1.3
1967	Lonborg			Merritt (1.7)	0.5

Winners: FIP 15/36 (42%), Rally 19/43 (44%), Both 14/20, Neither 17/36
Here are the ML winners. Fangraphs only has pitching leaderboards back to 1974, so that is why the FIP section stops then.

ML	Winner	Rally Leader (Diff)	Above 2nd
1966	Koufax	y	1.8
1965	Koufax	Marichal (1.0)	0.9
1964	Chance	y	0.7
1963	Koufax	y	0.5
1962	Drysdale	Farrell (1.7)	0.2
1961	Ford	Cardwell (2.1)	0.1
1960	Law	Drysdale (2.5)	0.4
1959	Wynn	Wilhelm (4.7)	0.1
1958	Turley	Jones (3.2)	0.2
1957	Spahn	Sullivan (1.4)	0.2
1956	Newcombe	Wynn (4.1)	0.6

It's fun to see how bad some of the picks were: McDowell in '93, Welch in '90 (27 wins, I know), any reliever... We can also see how dominant Randy, Roger, and Pedro were. We see forgotten pitchers to many, such as Dave Stieb and Kevin Appier. Also, how long ago would Blyleven have been elected to the HOF if he had won a couple of the awards he probably deserved?

This confirms what I thought to begin with: fewer runs allowed is more important to the voters than true talent. As much as I love FIP, I think the results, lucky or not, should be the more important part of the voting process.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I just went through year-by-year, figuring out who really should have gotten the awards. Clemens ended up with 9 definite wins and 2 other probable wins. And we think his 7 are ridiculous….

by LeeTro on Aug 16, 2010 12:58 AM EDT reply actions

I also think it should be results based. For instance, a guy might put up an unsustainable LOB% that prevents runs from scoring….but that did contribute to preventing runs from scoring and helping his team win actual games, which is the whole point of playing the game….

by Missing Barry on Aug 16, 2010 10:51 AM EDT reply actions

I'd be interested to see WPA thrown into the equation

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if there’s a stronger correlation between WPA and Cy Young voting than there is with WAR or FIP.

Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."

by Brickhaus on Aug 16, 2010 1:58 PM EDT reply actions

This may not be the overall result, but starting with Marshall’s ’74 season, he had a -0.02 WPA.

by LeeTro on Aug 16, 2010 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions

I finished those standings and it was almost the same percentages as FIP. Marshall was the only negative, but the pick of Willie Hernandez is much more justified.

by LeeTro on Aug 17, 2010 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions

I think that it should be based on results

It’s about who was the best pitcher in the previous 162 games, not who’s presently the best pitcher going forward.

I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy

by Satchel Price on Aug 20, 2010 6:50 PM EDT reply actions

Okay, but let's take it to the extreme

Dude allows 27 screaming line drives that right to the center fielder and throws a perfect game. Defense isn’t a factor – they were easily fieldable balls – but the pitcher clearly got lucky.

Other dude strikes out 27 batters, walks none, and allows 3 bloop singles and a run.

The first pitcher had better results, but was he the better pitcher?

by vivaelpujols on Aug 23, 2010 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions

But of course over an entire season that stuff largely normalizes, and until we have stronger evidence of “luck”, I don’t think we should always just assume a guy was lucky. For example, let’s say a guy has a lower ERA than FIP over a season and we can conclude it wasn’t because of good D (or a WPA that indicates his results were better than his FIP or whatever else). We see he has a higher strand rate than we normally expect. Without evidence it was luck – like actual data showing guys really were hitting line drives that happened to go to the fielders – I believe he should be credited for that, as it did have a positive impact on his team winning (which is what we ultimately care about). Who knows, maybe he struck a few extra guys out in high leverage situations? As long as it’s unclear, I definitely think the pitcher deserves credit for results that lead to extra wins for his team, and really, even if it’s luck……well, a win is still a win, even if it’s lucky.

by Missing Barry on Aug 25, 2010 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions

...

Without evidence it was luck – like actual data showing guys really were hitting line drives that happened to go to the fielders – I believe he should be credited for that, as it did have a positive impact on his team winning (which is what we ultimately care about).

There are two problems I have with this. One is that we know luck exists and we know that certain players are effected by luck. We also know that it’s likely that a guy who had a lower ERA than FIP was lucky because the driving factors in the difference between the two stats (BABIP and timing of events) have almost no year to year correlation (implying there is little skill involved in them). I would rather assume he was lucky than assume that he had complete control over all the little things that went his way, because more often than not, he got lucky. Of course this can all be solved by just taking an average of ERA and FIP, or some other form of weighting. Of course this method is still systematically biased towards pitchers with good defenses.

My other problem is that I don’t think the Cy Young should go to the guy who had the most positive outcome on his team winning. That makes sense for the MVP, but the Cy Young, IMO, should go to the pitcher who pitched the best – and I would rather not credit pitchers with things that are most likely out of his control.

by vivaelpujols on Aug 28, 2010 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions

I think the main disagreement here is really just a difference on how we look at it. To me, the point of playing is to win baseball games, and everything needs to be put in that context. The guy who does the most to help his team win deserves to be recognized for his contributions towards winning, regardless of how sustainable or even how skill based those contributions are. That is what I see as the point of both the Cy Young and the MVP. Contributions towards winning games, because ultimately what matters is winning.

The gray area, to me, is “who gets credit for a given event”. I see plenty of room for argument there. When a guy hits a ball right at the fielder and it turns into an out….how much credit does each party deserve? I compelely believe credit for the out needs to be given – as the out was an outcome that affected what actually matters – winning games….I’m just less clear on how to divide that credit. I think we have a severe lack of data to really support either side (fielder v pitcher) – whether a pitcher can “sustain” something or not doesn’t change that he threw a certain pitch to a certain location that generated a certain result, and I’ve never been comfortable with making the jump from “the pitcher can’t sustain it” to “it was luck”. I really don’t think play level data tells us nearly enough to make that conclusion. I’d be more convinced if we had Pitch F/X data and could compare actual outcomes to expected outcomes based on the pitch itself.

by Missing Barry on Sep 1, 2010 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions

I would rather not credit pitchers with things that are most likely out of his control

Just one more thing I’d like to add to supplement my comment – the pitcher is in control of the pitch he threw and where it went, that much I think we’d all agree on. One point I’m trying to get to here is that “unsustainable” and “out of the pitchers control” are not the same thing, and if something that is undoubtably in the pitchers control – the pitch and location of said pitch – produces a certain result….I think we need a whole lot more evidence than we have to say he doesn’t deserve credit. Of course we need to do everything we can to take the defensive aspect ouf of it, but after that…..who else is there to credit?

by Missing Barry on Sep 1, 2010 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Forgive me if I'm missing something

This confirms what I thought to begin with: fewer runs allowed is more important to the voters than true talent.

I don’t understand. If you’re saying the CY is awarded based on ERA, then you haven’t shown that (no ERA correlations in your columns), so how is it confirmed exactly?

"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.

by hairball on Sep 2, 2010 6:23 PM EDT reply actions