Yankees lost though, so Tigers are just three games back of them. And they have 10 against the Rays and Red Sox left, I think.
OT Verlander 24-5
You are correct 10/11 against Ray and Red Sox.
Tigers are 4 back in loss column which makes things a little more difficult. OTOH Tigers won season series vs Yanks 4-3, so I'm thinking Tigers win tiebreaker.
They also have a makeup game against the Twins tomorrow.
that Verlander isn't even the Cy Young winner anymore. Sabathia has him in fWAR, FIP and xFIP.
Is there an argument Sabathia should win it? Sure. Is that argument reasonable, as in would a reasonable person consider it valid? Uh, no.
if you buy into DIPS-ish pitching statistics (and you should), then Sabathia has a really, really good case. Verlander had a huge lead in all the advanced stats a month and a half ago, but Sabathia has passed Verlander in basically all of them. Verlander's biggest claims to fame now are Wins and ERA, but Pitcher Wins is an utterly useless stat, and ERA is a very flawed one.
Sorry, like football I buy into wins. If I have one game to win I start Verlander over anyone else this year. He deserves any accolades that come his way.
I'd just say this: basically every front office in baseball is ignoring Pitcher Win totals in favor of stats like FIP, xFIP, tERA, SIERA, and other advanced stats that isolate the things a pitcher can control and minimize the effect of luck, defense, run support, and ballpark.
If you don't want to buy into those, that's cool, but I think you're missing out on some real insights in to what makes pitchers (including Verlander) great.
bc people who vote, Baseball writers and such, aren't exactly known for their rate of change
just talking about who should.
And I'll say this: I have absolutely no problem with Verlander winning the award. He's been -- at worst -- the second best pitcher in the AL this year. I'm just a bit annoyed that the narrative is "Verlander is the only legitimate candidate" when Sabathia is having an awesome season that compares very favorably with Verlander's.
I love advanced metrics as much as the next guy. But when one guy leads in:
- Innings pitched,
- % of quality starts,
- Component ERA,
- OBP against,
- Slugging % against, and
- OPS against
You've got a really, REALLY tall hill to climb to convince me he doesn't deserve the Cy Young.
sorry, but the eye test by everyone with a pulse and knowledge about baseball (no offense intended) says its not close and that there isn't another candidate who deserves the award.
For argument sakes...traditional states that matter in the voting process
The only thing Sabathia has going for him is he pitches in a sandbox, but at the same time, he has the most expensive lineup full of all stars behind him, yet he is nowhere near JV in wins
Just my 2 cents
Tell that to Zack Greinke.
And Verlander has like a .237 BABIP this season, which is a huge reason his ERA is as low as it is. That's just not sustainable. What's impressive is that, even normalizing his BABIP, his stats are still awesome, because he's a great pitcher.
SABR people look at BABIP as flawed too. Some pitchers have lower BABIP's because they are better pitchers. Pitchers with high strikeout rates get weaker, easier to field balls. Pitchers with higher ground ball rates have lower BABIPs on ground balls than others. The same applies to HR/FB rate. The more fly balls you allow, the fewer home runs you allow per fly ball. That's why they invented the stat Siera. It factors in all the different rates that pitchers produce compared to, on average, what happens when you give up those rates. That eliminates each pitchers particular defense from the equation, which ERA does not do. For the record, Verlander has a 2.79 Siera and CC has a 2.97.
BABIP isn't a completely independent thing that will always revert to some magical median.
Which is more likely: Verlander has just been lucky with balls in play for the last 33 starts, or that hitters might not hit the ball very hard off the guy throwing 300 MPH with ridiculous secondary pitches?
a career BABIP of .286, so it is completely possible that he has gotten a bit lucky. It's also completely possible he's gotten even better than he already was before as he is walking nearly 2 percent fewer hitters than his career total, indicating better control. Answer? Who knows. It seems likely that .237 won't happen again next year though.
No offense to you personally, but I learned a long time ago never to argue advanced metrics/statistics with people. You can not convince an advanced metric/statistic person of anything. You cannot even have a reasonable debate. People of that ilk love advanced metrics more then the sport involved, more than logic, more than their kid, and the opportunity to be contrarian and advocate something ridiculous because of some acronym that was made up 11 minutes ago will preclude them from reasonable thought. Me and the 98% of Cy Young voters who list Verlander as #1 will be off on one-side, and the advanced metric people will gnash their teeth and beat their breasts that everyone had the audacity to watch sporting events and see who was obviously the most dominant pitcher in a season in almost a decade instead of sitting at home and looking at xFIP charts.
that people say about SABR people. That they don't love baseball. Do you have any idea how much someone has to love baseball to devote thousands of hours to figuring out what makes some baseball players better than others? Talk to any sabermetric person, and you'll meet someone who has an incredible, abiding love for the sport of baseball. And it's an appreciation that's not limited to a fucking spreadsheet. Every sabermetrics guy I know thought Austin Jackson's 9th inning throw to win that game against Cleveland was just unbelievably awesome, and Verlander has had like 5 starts this year that have left my jaw on the floor.
Sabermetrics people are, almost to a man, sabermetrics people BECAUSE they love baseball.
I think the most fucking infuriating thing about hardcore SABR enthusiast is they feel nothing outside the codifications of their advanced metrics is worth considering. You, no doubt, would be annoyed if someone's argument for why one pitcher should get the Cy over another was that they saw both of them pitch 3 times, and one of them looked better (the eye-ball test). But conversely, the hardcore SABR enthusiast mindset that FIP, xFIP, and WAR are the best measurements we have to measure preformance, and so only listen to those, is ridiculous too. In all honesty, there needs to be some balance between the two mindsets. I'm not saying SABR is without merit, but it isn't anywhere near perfect. It doesn't take into consideration that some games are "bigger" than others, and how pitchers preform in those might, just might, matter more. It doesn't take into consideration other things like the number of times Verlander went to mound knowing he had to win to stop a winning steak and he was the only starting pitcher for 4 months keeping his team near playoff contention, while Sabathia's team all but had the wildcard (at worst) locked up in May. There are things to learn from the eyeball test, and there are things to learn from regular statistics, and there are things to learn from sabremetrics. And the fact that there is no contingency outside of hardcore SABR enthusiasts advocating ignoring everything we've seen, and every regular statistic, and that people should actually be voting for Sabathia tells me that in all likelihood, that small, miniscule minority off baseball fans are wrong and the other 99% of people who watch baseball and think Verlander has clearly had the best season in all of baseball are right. But, as I said, you will never convince an advanced metric person of anything: advanced metrics are their God, and God is never wrong.
most every guy who uses SABR stats and that I have read also consider Verlander as their Cy Young winner.
Let's not forget that Sabathia pitches in that bandbox in New York, and has to pitch in the AL East, whereas Verlander pitches in one of the most pitcher-friendly parks in MLB, in the AL Comedy Central.
Sabathia should win it, and it's not even close.
I can't stand the Yankees, but I'd be fooling myself if I said Verlander really deserved it over Sabathia. AAB has laid it out pretty clearly, and generally, the winner of the Cy Young DOES have the highest WAR of any other pitcher in the game.
I'd love to see Verlander win it, but the metrics speak otherwise.
No, there's not a neat acronym for choking against your biggest division rival or wins after your team loses. Hence, those sort of considerations aren't valid. Perhaps one day when SABR2.0 comes out and we have C/DivRiv and Wf(TL), then it'll matter, but not today.
You would be right about the whole "pitcher-friendly park" thing but unfortunately 15 of Verlander's 24 wins came on the road.
I love when people make outrageous statements like this "its not even close" when the person they're touting is going to lose the vote by a 20-1 margin. Arguing Sabathia should totally win the Cy Young and its not even close is like saying "Ross Perot is totally going to win in 1996, and its not even going to be a contest!" At some point, you lose credibility when your myopia blinds you to the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.
I said Sabathia should win -- it's not a prediction. WAR, xFIP, and FIP are some of the most accurate measures of a pitcher's level of dominance at his position, and on that principle, it shouldn't be close.
Your analogy doesn't make any sense whatsoever, either, but I'm really not into arguing with people who would rather sling thinly veiled insults, so I'm out.
baseball-reference WAR right now indicates Verlander at 8.0 and CC at 6.6.
as well. I also don't think it reflects today's game, because it says he's only made 32 starts. ESPN says he had 33. I'm not sure how all this stuff works, but I would assume it could only get better by going 8IP, 3H, 2BB(I think), 0ER, 6K's. Right?
those don't usually get updated until you wake up in the morning. Unless you're a night owl like myself.
I think it's possible to be a SABR and still think Verlander should win the Cy. In fact, the SABR community is somewhat split on this issue with the somewhat strong majority pushing for Verlander.
As had been noted, bWAR has Verlander well ahead of Sabathia. Verlander leads in K/9, K%, BB/9, BB%, ERA, SIERA, tERA (by far).
Sabathia leads in FIP largely as a result of the paucity of HRs he's given up. On the other hand, he still leads in xFIP (just barely) as a result of giving up almost no flyballs. This is pretty dumb however, as Verlander has one of the highest IFFB rates in the league, which is factored into his flyball rate, and he's giving up 6% less line drives. So to just look at FIP and fWAR and say Sabathia's better shows YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. NERD HARDER.
In my chat on Tuesday, I received several comments complaining that CC Sabathia is being ignored in the Cy Young race. The main arguments for his case, compared to Justin Verlander's: CC has faced tougher competition and pitches in a bandbox. ESPN Insider Matt Meyers has a piece up today that brings up these same issues and Matt concludes his case by writing, "When put in the proper context, Sabathia has been every bit as good as, if not better than, Verlander this season."
It's a compelling argument ... but I'm going to gently disagree.
First off, the tougher competition argument makes some sense. Sabathia pitches in the AL East, he's faced the Red Sox five times; Verlander pitches in the AL Central and gets to beat up on the Twins and Royals and Adam Dunn. As Matt points out, Sabathia has made 13 starts against the top five offenses in the American League compared to Verlander's six. That may seem like a big difference, but there's another way to check this. Baseball Prospectus keeps tracks of the quality of opposition batters each pitcher has faced. Here's the aggregate batting line for each pitcher:
So we're talking 15 points of OPS, which is notable by hardly sizable.
Now check out what each pitcher has allowed this season:
Sabathia has allowed an OPS 106 points lower than his aggregate average. Verlander has allowed an OPS 189 points lower.
There's also the matter of how Sabathia has pitched against those top offenses (Red Sox, Rangers, Tigers and Blue Jays): Not very good. In those 13 starts against the top offenses, he's posted a 5.03 ERA and allowed 97 hits in 87.2 innings. Verlander has made only six starts against those teams (plus the Yankees), but if we add in the Royals (who have scored only a few runs fewer than the Blue Jays), we get nine starts against the top offenses. In those nine games, Verlander has posted a 1.98 ERA with 40 hits allowed in 68.1 innings.
As for the ballpark, it's true that Yankee Stadium is a tougher park for pitchers than Comerica Park. However, keep in mind that Yankee Stadium helps left-handed batters much more than right-handed ones, due to the short porch. Sabathia, of course, faces far fewer lefties. Ballpark effects remain an imperfect science; each park is given an overall rating, but the "handedness" of each park isn't taken into account. (Fenway, for example, hurts left-handed pitchers more than right-handers.) So while you can argue that Sabathia is hurt by his home park, I'm not sure if that's completely accurate.
Yeah man, raw numbers are so unreasonable.
No. Since you missed it the first time, CC definitely leads Verlander in WAR, xFIP, and FIP, which are superior metrics for measuring a pitcher's dominance. ERA and wins are both very, very flawed measures of a pitcher's effectiveness.
I heard that WAR, xFIP, and FIP are perfect and don't have a single flaw, therefore you win the argument.
FIP is predictive for next season, but it doesn't necessarily reflect a pitcher's current/past performance.
Even the current SABR overlord says you should probably use a combo of fangraphs WAR (FIP-based) and bbr WAR (ERA-based).
I don't disagree that Sabathia has some stats that support his candidacy, but his leads in some of those statistics are quite trivial (0.1 in WAR is basically dead even, as is xFIP). I am more impressed that Verlander has pitched 14 more innings, a better K/BB rate, etc.
Personally, I think if JV is the MVP then you also have to consider Halliday, who is having a monster season in Philly as well. Of course, that team has 4 top-notch starters, so that probably hurts his candidacy.
I'd give the CY Young to Verlander and, if Bautista or Granderson keeps hitting, him the MVP. But if Verlander does hit 25 wins and those hitters struggle a bit down the stretch, then I don't see anyone else having a more valuable impact of his team's season than Verlander.
Though you are correct about other impressive stats, I don't think there is anything archaic about winning, it's pretty fundemental if you want to have a good team
for a team.
It's a really awful metric for a pitcher.
Sort of. You can't simply compare records and declare the 17-game winner to be better than the 15-game winner. There are about 37 statistics that are more telling of a pitcher's success/value.
At the same time, when dude wins 24 games (with a couple of starts potentially left), you don't need to look much further to know that the guy is having a fantastic season.
but his win total has nothing to do with that.
As an (admittedly absurd) hypothetical, a pitcher with a 7.00 ERA whose lineup gave him 11 runs per game would probably win 25 games, but would be an awful pitcher. It makes way more sense to rely on stats that isolate what a pitcher can actually control (essentially, strikeouts, walks, home run rate, and ground balls).
As you acknowledged, that hypothetical is absurd. It's tough to find a mediocre pitcher who's won 20 games in a season. 25 wins in a season? Forget it.
It's not the most useful metric, but it has a degree of value. It shows, at least, that the pitcher was able to consistently protect leads for his team.
Jack Morris won 21 games with an ERA of 4.04. He was a league average pitcher (ERA+ of 102) who won 21 games.
Is it somewhat rare? Sure. Does it happen? Absolutely.
If the most recent example goes back 19 years, then it's more than "somewhat" rare. There are what, 150 regular starting pitchers per season? You have to go back through nearly 3,000 pitching seasons to dig that one up.
Also, I'd call Jack Morris more than an average pitcher, even if his ERA that year wasn't remarkable.
because that never goes anywhere good.
I cited Jack Morris because I knew off the top of my head that he had a 20 win season where he was not a very good pitcher. I haven't taken a look at every twenty win pitcher since then to pick out those with terrible ERAs.
Anyway, the basic point is this: there are many factors that go into winning a baseball game. A game turns on offense, defense, pitching, and random chance. A pitcher has more input into the outcome of a game than any other player on the field, but it's almost certainly significantly less than 50% in any game. It's a weird anachronism of baseball that we've decided to keep track of wins and losses as an individual stat only for pitchers, and it rewards and punishes pitchers for things outside of their control (bullpen, defense, luck, offense) in a way that obscures, rather than illuminates, overall valuation of a pitcher.
Verlander is GREAT. Pitcher wins ain't why.
Jack Morris was a very good pitcher, but Jack Morris failed Metrics 101 because he didn't care about stats, just winning. That mean son of a bitch would shut your ass down all night until his team got him 5 runs, then he would give a couple runs. it's a hard thing to quantify
I forget who, actually did a study of the "pitch to the score" thing specifically as it related to Jack Morris. They found no evidence whatsoever that Jack Morris eased off the gas when he had a big lead. He was a solid pitcher for a very long time. He also had the benefit of playing on many great baseball teams, which probably unfairly inflated his win total.
Edit: here is the article on Jack Morris and the "pitch to the score" idea. It's from Baseball Prospectus
I know it will make me a neanderthal, but there isn't chance in hell I read the article. All I can do is smile because this is such a pointless exercise. I appreciate your enthusiasm for the game, but I saw first hand what Morris was capable of, going up against the best, in the biggest moments, and the guy had "It".
this is the most likely to get neg-banged (which is saying something).
There is no such thing as "clutch", or "it" or whatever you want to call it.
It is a myth.
A lot of people say Derek Jeter is "Mr. Clutch" or whatever. He has played 147 post season games, so enough of a sample to compare it to other full seasons. Has anyone actually looked at his career regular season numbers and compared them to his post season numbers? They are remarkably similar.
I wouldn't neg ya, but I cannot even comprhend how you can watch people compete and arrive at such a conclusion.
the thought line that the players who make the big clutch plays are usually the players who make the same plays all game and season long, even in "non-clutch" situations. We just don't remember those moments in our minds as easily. You probably remember David Eckstein as clutch because of the 2006 World Series, but his career post season numbers are virtually identical to his career regular season numbers. In fact, freakishly identical.
Being "clutch" often means that a player continued to perform at a given level even when pressure rises. LOTS of players "choke" to some extent, so overcoming that potential pitfall is a real thing.
Think of mid-2000's Tiger Woods putting on Sunday in major tournaments. Ten-footers aren't objectively difficult putts, but Tiger ALWAYS made them regardless of the pressure of the situation.
That's just a ridiculous statement. If you are seriously suggesting that some players aren't more apt to perform well in crucial situations than others, I can't argue with you.
like to let teams back into games?
You seem not to get my point and argue a different point, which is how these things tend to go. I can tell you without hesitation, Jack Morris was one helluva pitcher and one helluva competitor, and I would stack him up against any pitcher in any era, he was that good. You could feel it when Morris pitched, you might not understand, but Brady Hoke would.
But Verlander does have all the gaudy stats to go with 24 wins and most everyone is aware of his other stats. Being able to win and close out batters, innings, games is an art, an art at which JV has become quite adept. I seem to recall quite a few games where JV has given up runs when he had the lead, but rarely does he give up the lead. I don't think it is a coincidence. JV has the ability to bare/bear down and get a crucial out, some call it random variation, some call it luck, some call it a skill.
If I needed to win a game seven of the World Series in 2011, I would take JV over anyone in the game. The question is iffier over a 7 game series but an argument can be made for JV in that scenario as well.
had 3 wins at the trading deadline. Think about that for a few minutes.
An extreme outlier, obviously. 99 times out of 100, a guy with a 3-12 record is going to be a crappy pitcher.
version using really good to excellent pitchers. David Price is 12-12 this year. That's the same record as John Lackey.
what about for a goalie? should wins and GAA not be looked at when trying to decide who should win the vezina? its the same as wins and era
to answer that question.
or save percentage itself is flawed, if you think about it. A crazy save that most goalies would not make is rated as the same as an easy save that all goalies can make. Unfortunately, I know of no way to actually rate if a goalie actually makes more difficult saves than other goalies other than using my own two eyes.
But save percentage is actually a very good stat. Only a few goalies (and the systems they play in) can buck that kind of sample size
I would take you more seriously if I hadn't watched Verlander pitch into the 7th or 8th letting up less than 5 hits and 1 run so many times this year. The Tigers won those games as a team because Verlander put them in position to win them.
But here's the thing: JV does have some control over the bull pen. Because JV pitches so deep into games he helps the bullpen help him - he gets the game to the bullpen in great positions. He pitches deep enough so that the he's protecting his win by having Valverde or Benoit take over instead of David Pauley.
Furthermore, JV is unique in the sense that he defies normal pitching standards. JV will start an inning with 110 pitches already under his belt, which again goes to the fact that he does have an influence on the bullpen's ability to preserve wins.
I'm not a stat guy; I guess for someone as relatively young as me I'm a purist. Really, all you need to do is watch the guy to know that the 24 wins do represent his value. Is this to say wins are a quality indicator of every pitcher's value? No, but to say they're worthless is kinda ridiculous, especially when the Tigers have won Verlander's last 11 starts.
we fall 24 games off our current pace if we remove Verlander. Heck, the Tigers are 19-10 when Porcello pitches, so conceivably replacing Verlander with a Porcello level pitcher would only cost the team a few games. (Obviously caveats apply to the previous statement)
I don't think anyone is arguing that his wins are the only thing impressive about JV. It is the leading the league in pretty much any statistic a pitcher can lead in that has us thinking there is not really any competition for the Cy Young
Yesterday I noticed that Ohio U. really dusted Marshall. When reading the recap I saw a familiar (Detroit Tiger) name: (Tyler) Tettleton. I had the Tigers on the brain for some reason and wondered whether he was any relation to Mickey Tettleton (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/t/tettlmi01.shtml). Sure 'nuff:
Here's the recap:
THE WHAT OF, DAMN YOU, THE WHAT OF
Who was the last Tiger pitcher to win this many games? Denny McLain?
Mickey Lolich won 25 in 1971.
The last time anyone won 25 was Bob Welch (with 27) in 1990. In fact, since 1970, the only pitchers to top Verlander's 24 are:
Bob Welch (27), 1990
Steve Stone (25), 1980
Ron Guidry (25), 1978
Catfish Hunter & Fergie Jenkins (25 each), 1974
Steve Carlton (27), 1972
Mickey Lolich (25), 1971
Pretty rarified air there if JV can win his last start.
Dude, its all meaningless. He trails Sabathia in xFIP. Thats why every single CY Young prediction and article out there has Sabathia winning. Verlander had a great season, but he just cared too much about winning games, pitching no hitters, chewing through the most innings, leading the league in strikeouts, having the lowest batting average against possible, and having a sub-1.00 WHIP, and not enough time perfecting his xFIP number. :( :( :( All is lost.
with FIP and xFIP is that they COMPLETELY ignore batted balls altogether. And all xFIP does it set every pitchers FIP rate as if they all were MLB average at allowing homers per fly ball. Not all pitchers do that. That's why Siera was invented. Obviously, it's not perfect by any means, but it's proven to be even more accurate going forward than xFIP has been.
I was there, along with a few hundred other Tiger fans. I was prepared to sing the Michigan fight song if (M Go) Victor(s) Martinez hit one out, but never got the chance.
I guess someone finally figured out what it's good for?
If my title had said, "OT Tigers win 3-0", this thread would probably have about 10 posts with 5 of them being mine. I hit a nerve with the Saber Toothed Tiger fans by using such a worthless stat such as W-L Record to concisely sum up JV's day.
But when you have the most wins posted by any pitcher in the American League during this century, it's a noteworthy thing.
While it may not be stat worthy, it is quite newsworthy. I think more people are interested in JV winning his 24th than his pitching 8 shutout inning, plus by my title you already know the Tigers won. Such efficiency and so little appreciation, life can be hard sometimes.
You may be more accurate than you intended to be.
Just glanced through the stats, and not only does Verlander have the AL pitching "triple crown" in hand (ERA, Ks, Wins), he has the triple crown for all of baseball as well as the most innings pitched and lowest WHIP. For all of baseball.
What was equally interesting is that Clayton Kershaw is second in every one of those categories. That kid has had a hell of a season in his own right.
You do understand he trails Sabathia by hundredths of a point in xFIP, which negates everything you just said, right?
find this interesting
Things to Remember:
- While homerun rates are generally unstable over time, some pitchers are still more prone to allowing homeruns than others. If a pitcher has a long history of out- or under-performing the league average with their HR/FB rate, then you can reasonably expect them to perform closer to their career average than the league-average. For example, C.C. Sabathia has a career 8.5% homerun rate, and has never posted a homerun rate above league average. In cases like this, xFIP may not be the best judge of the player’s true talent level.
but wanted to post that just incase. You can never be too sure with some of the people around here. haha
I reject your statistical reality and insert my own.
has been disgustinly good all season, pitching his best in the biggest games.
This thread has been the biggest retard fight in the history of the internet.
Verlander will win the Cy Young, and maybe the MVP, and regardless of outcome, will be totally deserving of either award.
The Yankees minus CC would still make the playoffs, but if the Tigers didn't have Verlander they'd be in last place in the worst division in baseball.
No...no they would not be.
Man, Lions are great, Tigers are looking great, Sparty got punished, OSU is down, and UM is on the rise. What a great time to be a UM and Detroit sports fan!
I don't see how Verlander doesn't get the Cy Young. It's his. MVP on the other hand...now there's a discussion.