MLB '11

[Strangler Lewis]

And as Kershaw and the Phillies big three fade a bit, Tim Lincecum puts himself in line for a third Cy Young with another dominating performance.


[Sob.]

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

And as Kershaw and the Phillies big three fade a bit, Tim Lincecum puts himself in line for a third Cy Young with another dominating performance.


[Sob.]

According to this page, at least, Lincecum isn't even in the top 10. Meanwhile, Kershaw and Halladay have almost identical numbers in the 1 and 2 spot.

[Kevy Baby]

So, how many days until opening day for 2012?


I need something to look forward to...

[Strangler Lewis]

Take out the closers, the victory bonus points and the weight given to so-called "wins," and I'll bet he is in the top ten.

Did this formula predict Felix Hernandez's Cy Young last year?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Take out the closers, the victory bonus points and the weight given to so-called "wins," and I'll bet he is in the top ten.

If you do that the only thing they're being judged on (in this formula) is how far below 5 their ERA is, how many people they strike out, and if they pitch complete game shutouts (which nobody particularly does any more (with Cliff Lee being the one one with more than 2).

And it is important to keep in mind that Bill James is not saying his formula reflects how pitchers SHOULD be judged (got knows he's not a fan of wins as an important stat), just that the formula does a pretty good job of predicting how people will vote.

But if we limit the formula as you describe above:

1. Clayton Keshaw - 67.4
2. Roy Halladay - 66.3
3. Cliff Lee - 73.8
4. Tim Lincecum - 63.2
5. Cole Hamels - 58.5
6. Matt Cain - 53.0
7. Johnny Cueto - 52.1
8. Tim Hudson - 48.7
9. Hiroki Kuroda - 47.9
10. Ian Kennedy - 47.3

Note this assumed that in addition to removing the wins part of the formula you'd also remove the losses part. If the losses part is kept in then Lincecum would fall behind Hamels.

[Alex]

You can see what it predicted back to 2002 (there's a year drop down that lets you change it).

2002 - Correctly predicted both winners (Barry Zito, Randy Johnson)
2003 - Missed both. Roy Halladay won but was predicted 2nd. Eric Gagne won but was predicted 2nd.
2004 - Correctly predicted AL winner (Johan Santana) but Roger Clemens won though predicted 2nd.
2005 - Correctly predicted NL winner (Chris Carpenter) but Bartolo Colon won though prediced 2nd.
2006 - Correctly predicted both winners (Johan Santana and Brandon Webb).
2007 - Correctly predicted both winners (CC Sabathia and Jake Peavy)
2008 - Correctly predicted both winners (Cliff Lee and Tim Lincecum)
2009 - Missed both. Zack Greinke won though predicted 2nd. Tim Lincecum won though predicted 4th.
2010 - Correctly predicted NL winner (Roy Halladay). Felix Hernandez won though predicted 6th.

So it has been a pretty good predictor though with two larger misses recently.

[Strangler Lewis]

One would think that after the Greinke, Lincecum and Hernandez wins, the formula would have changed to recognize that wins have somewhat less emphasis among the voters.

[Strangler Lewis]

Looks reasonable to me, and it all more or less holds up when you factor in WHIP and BAA. When you consider that Lincecum's put up his numbers without the benefit of pitching against the Giants, I say he wins.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I think the "make it to the playoff" bonus is b.s. It's easier to pitch on a team that scores 4.5 runs/game and tends to win. 15 wins on a team like that? Big deal. But 15 wins on a team that's 11 games < .500 and scoring 3 runs per game? That's a skilled pitcher!

[Strangler Lewis]

Cry me a river. The Dodgers are averaging half a run per game more than the Giants.