Kershaw wins NL Cy Young

[southsider2k5]

discuss

[Quin]

Insert *Sun-rises* joke.

[Balta1701]

Insert *Sun-rises* joke.

Nope. This one was actually competitive.

[LittleHurt05]

Nope. This one was actually competitive.

 

Not really.

 

Kershaw won 27 of 32 1st place votes, Halladay won 3, Kennedy 1. He did win the NL Triple Crown.

[Balta1701]

Not really.

 

Kershaw won 27 of 32 1st place votes, Halladay won 3, Kennedy 1. He did win the NL Triple Crown.

Halladay solidly outdid Kershaw on the advanced stats though, as a function of pitching in a better hitter's park than Kershaw.

 

The fact that the voting is so 1 sided is telling again that the voters didn't look at the advanced stats on this one.

[Balta1701]

The equally unscientific poll of bloggers actually had Halladay with a slight win.

[iamshack]

Crazy that Kemp has the season he had, IMO, he is the MVP, and Kershaw wins the CYY, and get they still were not in position to compete past July or so.

[Milkman delivers]

Halladay solidly outdid Kershaw on the advanced stats though, as a function of pitching in a better hitter's park than Kershaw.

 

The fact that the voting is so 1 sided is telling again that the voters didn't look at the advanced stats on this one.

 

Or that the guy won the Triple Crown, so nobody really cares about the advances stats. I love advanced stats and all, but I feel like the Triple Crown is a trump card to pretty much anything.

[Balta1701]

Or that the guy won the Triple Crown, so nobody really cares about the advances stats. I love advanced stats and all, but I feel like the Triple Crown is a trump card to pretty much anything.

Here's the real question though.

 

Put Halladay in a pitchers park. Kershaw took the ERA by less than a 10th of a point, while pitching in a Pitcher's park. He's pitching in Dodgers stadium (and for a team with a worse offense/worse defense to boot), and suddenly Halladay's putting up an ERA 0.2 lower than Kershaw, just from park effects. Does that offset the strikeouts?

[Milkman delivers]

Here's the real question though.

 

Put Halladay in a pitchers park. Kershaw took the ERA by less than a 10th of a point, while pitching in a Pitcher's park. He's pitching in Dodgers stadium (and for a team with a worse offense/worse defense to boot), and suddenly Halladay's putting up an ERA 0.2 lower than Kershaw, just from park effects. Does that offset the strikeouts?

 

No. As I said, it's a trump card. It doesn't matter if he was only slightly better in each category, even with park adjustments. In the end, it's a similar argument to the "it'll look like a line drive in the box score" adage. He got the job done, he gets it.

[Balta1701]

No. As I said, it's a trump card. It doesn't matter if he was only slightly better in each category, even with park adjustments. In the end, it's a similar argument to the "it'll look like a line drive in the box score" adage. He got the job done, he gets it.

I woudlnt' be surprised if there's a time a few years down the road when "Halladay has a higher WAR" or some other ballpark adjusted stat that actually wins this conversation.

 

Or at least gets a lot closer.

[chw42]

As one of the saber nerds on this site...I will nitpick because I can and I truly believe Halladay was a better pitcher last season.

 

It's very hard to argue that Kershaw was better if you dig deeper into this.

 

ERA- (ERA adjusted to park factors, lower the better)

Kershaw: 62

Halladay: 61

 

The .06 difference in WHIP is explained by Kershaw's 29 point advantage in BABIP.

 

But here are the batted ball rates for the 2 pitchers

Halladay

LD%: 18.5%

GB%: 50.9%

FB%: 30.6%

 

Kershaw

LD%: 18.2%

GB%: 43.2%

FB%: 38.6%

 

LD% is nearly identical while Halladay actually induced more GBs and less FBs. Halladay also induced weaker contact on fly balls with a higher IFFB%. Halladay's batted ball rates are better across the board, yet still had a 30 point differential in BABIP.

 

This difference could be explained by overall defense. The Dodgers had a team UZR of +4.2, good for 11th in all of baseball. Meanwhile, the Phillies' -10 UZR is 17th. The Dodgers were 15th in DRS while the Phillies finished 28th.

 

So basically, there is NO difference between these two pitchers in terms of surface stats such as ERA and WHIP. Once you adjust the ERA to park factors and their WHIPs to defense, they are the same exact pitcher on the surface.

 

The difference lies in Halladay's superior peripherals. FanGraphs had Halladay at 8.2 WAR, Kershaw at 6.8. The 1.4 win difference is quite a lot. Baseball Reference had Halladay at .3 wins better.

 

Halladay had a better K:BB, HR rate, walk rate, FIP, xFIP, SIERA, ERA-, and better batted ball rates across the board. Meanwhile, Kershaw led in W, ERA, Ks, and WHIP while pitching in a pitcher's park and a division with two well below average offenses in the Padres and Giants. Halladay just wins in far too many rate categories that are of more substance than the counting stats. He was clearly the better pitcher and there should be very little to debate about that.

 

Speaking of strength of opposition...

 

wRC of teams faced

Kershaw, (33 teams), average team wRC of 667.9

Halladay (32 teams), average team wRC of 675.3

 

Average wRC+ of hitters faced

Halladay: 93.73

Kershaw: 91.66

 

On average, Halladay faced better hitters.

 

Call it nitpicking or what not, but Halladay was clearly better.

 

Remember this...the writers vote for who wins. Kershaw is the far better story (23 years old, first Cy Young, nice surface numbers the average fan would understand). Giving it to Halladay again would be boring and the writers wouldn't have much to write about. Even though he was the better pitcher and that is what the Cy Young is about.

 

Note to J4L: I'd like to see you argue against this.

Edited November 18, 2011 by chw42

[Milkman delivers]

All I'm reading is a bunch of paragraphs that basically say, "Halladay should have won because his numbers should have been better."

[chw42]

All I'm reading is a bunch of paragraphs that basically say, "Halladay should have won because his numbers should have been better."

 

Because he was and his numbers were better (at least the ones that really matter).

Edited November 18, 2011 by chw42

[LittleHurt05]

All I'm reading is a bunch of paragraphs that basically say, "Halladay should have won because his numbers should have been better."

 

Just like the Phillies should have won a playoff series or two.

[chw42]

Just like the Phillies should have won a playoff series or two.

 

Hey, Halladay wasn't the reason they lost. Unless you want to blame him for their inadequacies on offense.

[LittleHurt05]

Hey, Halladay wasn't the reason they lost. Unless you want to blame him for their inadequacies on offense.

 

Not at all. To go along with Milk's comment, Halladay's numbers should have been better, just like the Phillies should have won the NL, but it doesn't always work out that way.

[Balta1701]

Hey, Halladay wasn't the reason they lost. Unless you want to blame him for their inadequacies on offense.

He gave up that run in the first 2 batters of game 5.

[LittleHurt05]

He gave up that run in the first 2 batters of game 5.

 

And those two batters were Furcal & Schumaker, not Pujols or Berkman.

[Milkman delivers]

Not at all. To go along with Milk's comment, Halladay's numbers should have been better, just like the Phillies should have won the NL, but it doesn't always work out that way.

 

Thank you. I love the usefulness of advanced stats, but honestly they go too far sometimes. I don't care if one pitcher has worse numbers because of a higher BABIP or something one season. I might take that guy over the long haul, but I'm taking the guy with the better luck for that same season, in retrospect at least (which is how the voting is done).

 

[chw42]

Not at all. To go along with Milk's comment, Halladay's numbers should have been better, just like the Phillies should have won the NL, but it doesn't always work out that way.

 

It's not that they should have been better. Halladay's numbers were perfectly normal and neutral in terms of luck (.298 BABIP). On the other hand, Kershaw had a .270 BABIP against when his batted ball rates were inferior to that of Halladay's. On average, Halladay gave up less balls in play that were likely to leave the yard and induced more weak pop outs than Kershaw. Their LD%, which more or less determines a pitcher's BABIP due to their likelihood to fall for hits, were almost the same. The difference was more or less contributed to defense and luck. BUT, that is only me trying to explain the difference in their WHIPs.

 

When you adjust their ERAs to their home parks, the two are literally on par. In fact, Halladay was 1% better.

 

If you're really trying to find who the best pitcher is, you need to put them on equal ground. Kershaw had an advantage by pitching in a pitcher's park while Halladay pitched in a neutral park that slightly favored hitters. That alone says Halladay was better in terms of ERA.

 

As for the Phillies not winning the NL, you tell me if 5 games is enough to determine who the better team really is.

[Swingandalongonetoleft]

As for the Phillies not winning the NL, you tell me if 5 games is enough to determine who the better team really is.

 

I think they just ran out of gas. They put together an 8 game losing streak towards the end of the regular season and ran into a Cards team in the first round whose farts smelled like flowers (and also lost 3 of 4 to during the afore-mentioned 8 game losing streak).

 

I remember someone (J4L?) being pretty certain this would happen towards the beginning of the season (Kershaw Cy Young). Good job.

[Balta1701]

I remember someone (J4L?) being pretty certain this would happen towards the beginning of the season (Kershaw Cy Young). Good job.

My knees still ache from buckling while watching a curveball that he snapped off in spring training 08.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I think they just ran out of gas. They put together an 8 game losing streak towards the end of the regular season and ran into a Cards team in the first round whose farts smelled like flowers (and also lost 3 of 4 to during the afore-mentioned 8 game losing streak).

 

I remember someone (J4L?) being pretty certain this would happen towards the beginning of the season (Kershaw Cy Young). Good job.

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...aded&start=

 

Can't really take too much credit, though. Predicting a future CY for Kershaw is like predicting a Balta/2K5 death match over some topic that nobody cares about.

Edited November 18, 2011 by Jordan4life

[max power]

It's not that they should have been better. Halladay's numbers were perfectly normal and neutral in terms of luck (.298 BABIP). On the other hand, Kershaw had a .270 BABIP against when his batted ball rates were inferior to that of Halladay's. On average, Halladay gave up less balls in play that were likely to leave the yard and induced more weak pop outs than Kershaw. Their LD%, which more or less determines a pitcher's BABIP due to their likelihood to fall for hits, were almost the same. The difference was more or less contributed to defense and luck. BUT, that is only me trying to explain the difference in their WHIPs.

 

When you adjust their ERAs to their home parks, the two are literally on par. In fact, Halladay was 1% better.

 

If you're really trying to find who the best pitcher is, you need to put them on equal ground. Kershaw had an advantage by pitching in a pitcher's park while Halladay pitched in a neutral park that slightly favored hitters. That alone says Halladay was better in terms of ERA.

No, that alone does not. There are so many other factors that you are ignoring in that statement. Some of them can never possibly be measured by statistics, no matter how advanced.