One of the great things about baseball — about life, in fact — is how many bizarre leftovers we have from simpler times. PItchers, you no doubt know, are called “pitchers” because when baseball began they were not allowed to throw the ball overhand. They had to toss it underhand — you pitched the baseball then the same way you pitch horseshoes today. Of course, I’m not suggesting that you were out pitching horseshoes today. You may not have pitched horseshoes all week.
ANYWAY, pitchers no longer ”pitch“ the ball (with the possible exception of Mark Redman), but we still call them pitchers because, well, because. If you look around the world, you will find countless things like this, countless daily activities and traditions that no longer make a whole lot of sense in today’s world but survive because we are too lazy or tied to history to change them. John Madden, for instance.
This comes up today because of the American League Cy Young Award vote. I voted for Cy this year, and it was probably the hardest vote I’ve come across. To me, there were four pitchers who all had almost precisely the same claim on the award, and that didn’t even include Erik Bedard, who I think was the most dominant pitcher in the game over the last three or four months, and it didn’t include J.J. Putz, who was ridiculously unhittable all year, and it didn’t include Ambiorix Burgos, because he’s in the National League and he is also a complete disaster.
PAT ON THE BACK INTERLUDE: You know, I am so rarely right. About anything. I was wrong about Divx being the next new thing in DVDs. I was wrong about the Yankees being dead. I was wrong about male pattern baldness not being hereditary. This list could go on forever. But I was bleeping right about Ambiorix Burgos. When the Royals traded him to the Mets for Brian Bannister, I told everybody that it was a great trade for Kansas City. Burgos then showed up at training camp throwing 100 mph, and all my New York buddies were talking about what morons the Royals were for trading him. I said, ”Just wait.“ And here’s what I wrote:
By the way, what kind of goof throws the ball 100 mph before the end of February? I’m not crazy, right? Isn’t this like walking up to a doctor and saying, “Hey, would you mind cutting my ulnar collateral ligament? Thanks.”
A few months later, Ambiorix Burgos had Tommy John surgery.
ANYWAY, for me, the Cy voting came down to Josh Beckett, C.C. Sabathia, Fausto Carmona and John Lackey. These guys were absurdly close. Each one offered a very good reason to vote for him. Each one offered a very good reason not to vote for him. Every argument you could make for one, you could counter for another.
Josh Beckett (20-7, 3.27 ERA)
Reasons to vote for him: Led the league in victories, best road ERA.
Reasons to not vote for him: Highest overall ERA among four, got by far the best run support, made fewest starts and pitched fewest innings.
C.C. Sabathia
Reasons to vote for him: Remarkable 209-37 strikeout to walk ratio, beat Johan Santana over and over again when it mattered, pitched the most innings.
Reasons to not vote for him: Game up by far the most extra base hits of the four; (he gave up an impossible to believe 60 doubles) didn’t even lead his own staff in ERA.
Extra base hits allowed in 2007
Sabathia: 81
Beckett: 65
Lackey: 64
Carmona: 47
Fausto Carmona (19-8, 3.06 ERA)
Reasons to vote for him: He was absurdly good from July 1st on when the Indians were battling for a playoff spot (11-4, 2.35 ERA), led league in adjusted ERA+.
Reasons to not vote for him: He didn’t win as many games as Beckett, his ERA isn’t as good as Lackey, and all year Sabathia was the No. 1 starter in Cleveland.
John Lackey (19-9, 3.01 ERA)
Reasons to vote for him: Led the American League in ERA; he was dominant against the Angels’ No. 1 rival Seattle (4-0, 0.58 ERA).
Reasons to not vote for him: No holes in his game, but you get the sense he doesn’t have anything as impressive as Sabathia’s K-W ratio, Beckett’s road ERA or Carmona’s stretch run.
OK, I’ll tell you who I voted for in a minute, but first I should get back to the point of this who blog: Aren’t you utterly creeped out by that guy in the rental car commercial who tells the GPS system that he loves her? I mean, seriously, that’s about the creepiest commercial in the history of the world, right? Would you want that guy living next door to you? And they show that close-up of his face as he’s looking over at the GPS system — oh man, that’s more difficult to watch than the phone recording scene in ”Swingers.“
No, that’s not the point of this blog. The point is: How loud do you think the boos will be for A-Rod when he gets back to Yankee Stadium? You might have maintenance workers in the Bronx using jackhammers shouting, ”Hey, would you keep it down over there?“ I mean, there’s something to this A-Rod postseason curse now, right? It’s the ninth inning of the Yankees-Indians playoff game, and A-Rod just struck out, and he is now zero for his last 18 in the playoffs. I’m one of these people who think that the abuse A-Rod has taken has been ridiculous — but there’s something going on his head now. He looks almost helpless. It’s weird.
But that’s not the point of this blog either. The point, finally, is this: Why don’t we vote for the Cy Young Award AFTER the playoffs? This voting before the playoffs has become such a part of baseball (such a part of all sports, really), that we don’t even think about this anymore. But does it make any sense at all? We’re trying to pick the best pitcher of the year, so wouldn’t it make sense to take into account Beckett’s shutout in the playoffs or Carmona’s electric nine inning performance in the bug-filled air tonight or Lackey’s lackluster performance?
Bill James tells an interesting story about how all this began. He says this was decided just after the World Series in 1925. That year as you no doubt remember, the writers bizarrely voted Roger Peckinpaugh as MVP of the American League — apparently for his leadership and defensive skills at shortstop because he only hit .294, and he missed like 30 games. Anyway, that year they announced the away BEFORE the World Series. Peckinpaugh, the defensive whiz, promptly had eight errors in the World Series — EIGHT ERRORS — and his Senators lost the last three games to Pittsburgh to lose the series in seven games. Peckinpaugh made four errors in those three games, including a crucial error in the bottom of the eighth inning with the score tied. Some wiseguy wrote that Peckinpaugh wasn’t just the MVP of the American League, he was the MVP of the National League too.
This was embarrassing for everyone including Peckinpaugh, of course, and that winter, the wise guys in baseball decided to change the voting procedure to make sure it wouldn’t happen again. But instead of changing the vote so that it was after the World Series, they decided to KEEP voting before the World Series but not announce it until after the World Series was over. And so it has gone for every major sport since 1926. Isn’t it weird that we still vote this way in large part because of Roger Peckinpaugh?
OK, my Cy Young vote: It was such a tough one, that I decided to break it down many different ways. One thing I checked out was strength of schedule. It was somewhat telling:
Most playoff teams faced:
1. Josh Beckett: 10
2. John Lackey: 6
3. C.C. Sabathia: 4
4. Fausto Carmona: 3
Opponents average runs per game:
1. Josh Beckett: 4.91
2. John Lackey: 4.88
3. Fausto Carmona: 4.81
4. C.C. Sabathia: 4.79
This is just one factor, but it’s clear Beckett faced the toughest competition. Beckett’s ERA is slightly higher than the others, but you can attribute a lot of that to Fenway, which was the best hitter’s park in the AL this year. Beckett faced slightly tougher competition, he was virtually unhittable away from Fenway, and hey, he WAS the only 20 game winner in the bunch. So I voted for him.
You know, it would have been a lot easier 20 years ago. Back then you just voted for the guy with the most victories. Of course, in the end, that’s what I did anyway.
POSTSCRIPT: We’re in the 11th inning at Cleveland — what a game. You have a biblical bug plague. You have an amazing Fausto Carmona performance. You have the ongoing A-Rod soap opera. You have Mariano Rivera getting four outs to get out of the 10th. I mean, this is absolutely beautiful.
POSTSCRIPT II: Hey, apparently when you are using WordPress for your blogs, the comments thing works differently than it did on blogger. I guess you have to put a little information in to comment — and I guess I have to approve the comments. I don’t know if I can change that … but I’ll try.
22 Comments, Comment or Ping
Jason
Now that’s the blog length we’re expecting!
I disagree on including postseason for the awards, as it would even further weight players on strong teams - if you don’t make the postseason (or get eliminated in the first round), voters would be more likely to overlook you in favor of a player with two hot weeks in October. Recent winners like Webb in 06, Bonds in 04, Halladay & A-Rod in 03 all would have been disadvantaged by their teams not making the postseason. Already great players on weaker teams are disadvantaged for team-based stats like RBI and Ws. At least bracketing off the regular season levels the playing field for the number of opportunities that players are able to get on the field.
Oct 6th, 2007
Chris R
I like the fact that the Yankees’ curse now features insects. Or is it too early to go into full-fledged schanefrude mode?
Oct 6th, 2007
Tim Walker
Joe, you can change the comments options by going to the “Discussion” section under the “Options” tab on the WordPress dashboard. I’ve had good success with using the two “weak” screens, i.e.
# Comment author must fill out name and e-mail
# Comment author must have a previously approved comment
That way you can easily screen out spambots, but once somebody has commented sanely once, their future comments will sail through. (And, of course, you can still delete any comments you care to after the fact.)
Oct 6th, 2007
Vegas Watch
Joe, I really don’t get this Beckett thing.
Sabathia’s ERA was .06 lower. That “Opponents average runs per game” stat is great, I have not seen that anywhere else. In that table, Beckett’s “strengh of schedule” is .12 runs more difficult than CC’s. So I guess Beckett’s ERA might be slightly more impressive than Sabathia’s.
But then there’s this.
Beckett IP: 200.2
Sabathia IP: 241.0
That’s a pretty huge gap. I really think that more than makes up for the fact that Beckett may have been slightly better when actually pitching.
Oct 6th, 2007
James
Thanks for coming back! This entry made my day… it’s like coming home after a long vacation and having mom’s beef stew again
Oct 6th, 2007
Mike
I agree with the Beckett vote. I know I’m biased, but I think the most telling stat is the playoff teams faced. Even facing almost twice the number of the other contenders, his numbers were just as good. And after Wednesday night, I think writers who didn’t vote for Beckett are wondering why they ever doubted him.
However, I disagree with you about one thing… the phone message scene in “Swingers” is by far the most difficult thing to watch that I have ever seen. I’m cringing just thinking about it.
Oct 6th, 2007
doright
Joe, I am SO glad that you are back! I love the writing, the history and the humor!
Oct 6th, 2007
skott daltonic
welcome back! as i type this eric byrnes just hit a homerun to maybe kill the postseason hopes of the cubbie bears.
not my problem, i’m from boston. i have 9 more wins to worry about.
that being said, WELCOME BACK!!! i checked your other site every week or so praying you’d come back to us - there was no way you could hold out during the most exciting part of the year, right?
Oct 7th, 2007
George
You give me hope that writers do an actual analysis of their vote. I want Beckett to get the Cy, not just because I’m a Sox fan, but for what he did this season personified an ace. When the team was struggling, Josh was there every 5th day to give them a W. He gave the Sox the only win against the Yankees in September with a commanding performance that nixed Wang off the Cy Young ballot and staved off numerous Sox fans from jumping off many a New England bridge. Where CC had Carmona, Josh had an aging Schill and a rookie in Matsuzaka who showed us what he’s capable of in that one month of July.
If CC gets it, I can’t be too mad. He put in a lot of innings,a lot of 7, 8, 9 inning performances, and his numbers are comparable to Josh’s (ERA, WHIP, K’s). But I could only be accepting of it if all writers take the time that you did to dissect each candidate, which I greatly doubt they did (Shaughnessey, are you listening?).
Oct 7th, 2007
J. Michael Neal
The problem with using the figure for most playoff teams faced is that it guarantees that you are going to take a team from the division that the Wild Card comes from. Cleveland played a total of 26 games against playoff bound teams. Boston played 38. This doesn’t mean that Cleveland played a weaker schedule. It just means that the second best team in Boston’s division was a little bit better than the second place team in Cleveland’s. There is an inherent bias to this number.
Oct 7th, 2007
Vegas Watch
The “playoff teams faced” number is rough, as people have said, but I feel like the “opponents’ average R/G” is pretty good.
Oct 7th, 2007
lisa
joe,
i love your writing. i’m glad you are blogging again.
and agree completely with you about the creep in the car with the GPS. he looks just like what you’d think a child molester/rapist/pervert would be
Oct 7th, 2007
John Roberts
Mr. Posnanski-
The links at Baseball Primer, now Baseball Think Factory, have brought you to the notice of a wider public (including me). It’s one of the reasons I really like that site. Not only do I find your columns and blog well-reasoned and often humorous but I’d probably never have known of your book on Buck O’Neill if I hadn’t read them. It’s a wonderful book.
J.R.
Oct 7th, 2007
C. Trent Rosecrans
joe, glad you’ve returned to blogging
anyway, i’m glad i had an nl cy young vote. it was a lot easier — even though i did rethink for a second after that play-in game, but that didn’t erase an entire season
and to george, i think the writers who have votes take them a lot more seriously than the managers/coaches (gold glove/silver slugger) do.
Oct 7th, 2007
Jay
Joe,
Extremely glad you’re back after closing up shop on your soul of baseball blog.
Like some of the posters, I’m biased, so hope other writers voted like you for Beckett, but I think I’d need to go with Sabathia for the reasons those above noted, plus anyone who can pitch like that with that bulk is already executing with a degree of difficulty others don’t have.
Lastly, is that the same Roger Peckinpaugh who directed the Wild Bunch? Impressive multi-tasking.
Oct 8th, 2007
robustyoungsoul
Disappointing to see the vote go to Beckett, but then again I’m on of those people who still thinks Bedard should probably win. Possibly even Haren. At least you gave a good explanation for your vote, even though I still think Beckett is the weakest choice out of the bunch.
Welcome back to the blogging, btw, obviously we all missed you.
Oct 8th, 2007
Paul White
Joe!!
Glad to have you back. I’ve missed your blog since it departed, and have been scrambling to find good time-killers at work. Thanks for solving that problem for me.
I’m curious about why you didn’t consider Danny Haren a Cy Young candidate this year. Here’s his neutralized stat line next to Beckett’s:
Haren: 17-8, 2.83, 194 K, 226 IP
Beckett: 15-7, 2.85, 198 K, 205 IP
Please don’t tell me it was the whole “his team sucked” thing that caused you to eliminate him. I mean, for a pitcher, isn’t it MORE impressive when he has a good year for a bad team?
Oct 8th, 2007
John Gale
Joe,
While I appreciate the analysis you put into this, I have to call BS on one of your reasons not to vote for Sabathia, namely that he gave up by far and away the most extra base hits of the candidates. Well, yeah. He also pitched 41 more innings than Beckett did, so it would make sense that he gave up more extra base hits. That’s like using total earned runs instead of ERA. You have to factor in C.C.’s extra innings when calculating a stat like that. If you divide Sabathia’s 241 innings by his 81 extra base hits, you get an extra base hit every 2.98 innings. If you divide Beckett’s 200.1 innings by his 65 extra base hits, you get an extra base hit every 3.08 innings. So it’s not THAT big of a difference like you made it sound. Also, how can you not mention that Beckett got over a run more of run support per game, which far outweighs the opponents’ average runs per game?
Oct 9th, 2007
antoniomo
I just learned about your blog from The Pitch. I’ve loved your writing in the KC Star. Now I get to read your stuff here, too.
This week it’s my favorite way to avoid grading papers.
Oh, yeah. I don’t have an informed opinion for the Cy.
Oct 9th, 2007
Phil
Glad to have you back, Joe. ‘The Soul of Baseball’ was the best book I read this summer — thank you.
That said, I think I’ll have to disagree with you on Beckett, though he had a helluva season. Your write that the major reason for voting for Beckett is that “it’s clear that Beckett faced the toughest competition”. But if the Tigers are the Wild Card instead of the Yankees, then Sabathia faces 9 playoff teams to Beckett’s 6, a very fine line. And Sabathia beat Santana (Minnesota) head to head three times in August and September!
But to me the most telling stats are innings pitched and run support. Sabathia pitched 40 more innings (241 to 200) than Beckett. That’s 20% more than Beckett.
As for run support, you agree that Beckett had more, but when you look at the games, it becomes even more amazing.
After July 19th, the Boston Red Sox scored 7 or more runs in a Beckett start 5 times (out of 13 starts).
After July 19th, the Cleveland Indians NEVER scored 7 or more runs in a Sabathia start (out of 13 starts), and scored as many as 6 only once.
The competition faced is very equal, Sabathia pitched 20% more innings, has a lower ERA, and received much less run support the 2nd half of the season. The stats don’t lie. Sabathia should be the AL Cy Young. (That said, I think the majority of voters will side with you and award it [wrongly] to the Red Sock.
Oct 9th, 2007
Guillermo (Mexico)
Joe,
I love your work and i am really glad you came back with the blog.
That said, you blew it with the Cy. 41 innings Joe, 41!!!!!!!!. How can you value totals (Total Bases) with an unequal number of opportunities. Come on, Joe!!!!
I don’t think it’s close at all. Wins are a team Stat.
I still don’t understand, 41 innings, Joe. 41.
Oct 10th, 2007
Daniel
I have to say, that I could not agree with you in 100% regarding , but it’s just my opinion, which could be wrong
Oct 17th, 2007
Reply to “An uneasy Cy …”