David Price and the Cy Young award

TBRunGood · Post #1 » by **TBRunGood** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 12:49 pm

With Dallas Keuchel's implosion on Wednesday, Price now leads in ERA. Keuchel still has the better WAR, but Price now is ahead in K's ERA while behind in WAR and Wins.

Two questions: Do you think he will win the Cy Young? And do you think it's a good thing for Toronto seeing as his value will surely rise if he wins?

The_Hater · Post #2 » by **The_Hater** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 12:53 pm

Price is going to get a lot of extra votes just for the timing of the trade coinciding with the Jays getting hot. Old school voters love to give huge credit to 1 or 2 players for these events.

I think he's the favourite for the award right now and I don't think winning it will change his already sky high free agency value very much.

kayliecee · Post #3 » by **kayliecee** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:33 pm

I posted this somewhere else, but ESPN has a page devoted to the Cy Young and for some technical reason connected to his move halfway through the season, Price is not in the list.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/features/cyyoung

However the formula devised by Bill James and Rob Neyer is there:
Cy Young Points (CYP) = ((5*IP/9)-ER) + (SO/12) + (SV*2.5) + Shutouts + ((W*6)-(L*2)) + VB (a 12 point bonus awarded to pitcher of a playoff team)
This formula is not designed to show who is statistically the best pitcher. Rather it is based on what voters valued in the past and it has been 100% accurate in picking the winners since 2010.

Price = ((5*208/9)-56) + (212/12) + (0*2.5) + 1 + ((16*6)-(5*2)) + 12 = 176.2
which is easily the best at the moment.

Raptor_Guy · Post #4 » by **Raptor_Guy** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:58 pm

That formula shows that 7 of the top 10 AL CY Young candidates should be relievers, and they see nothing wrong with that formula?

cram · Post #5 » by **cram** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:09 pm

I hope he does. He's been great.

And guys, the dude is getting paid either way. I doubt the award changes his value that much.

Skin Blues · Post #6 » by **Skin Blues** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:15 pm

It does seem to be glitchy. Might have been formulated back when starting pitchers used to throw a lot more innings. Haven't checked, but I imagine IP/start for the CY candidates has gone down significantly over the past decade. Can't imagine any reliever getting a top 5 vote this season, although Miller might have if he was healthy all year.

kayliecee · Post #7 » by **kayliecee** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:33 pm

Raptor_Guy wrote:That formula shows that 7 of the top 10 AL CY Young candidates should be relievers, and they see nothing wrong with that formula?

"They" are Bill James and Rob Neyer, but I love the way you look down your nose at them. What are your qualifications?

kayliecee · Post #8 » by **kayliecee** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:38 pm

Skin Blues wrote:It does seem to be glitchy. Might have been formulated back when starting pitchers used to throw a lot more innings. Haven't checked, but I imagine IP/start for the CY candidates has gone down significantly over the past decade. Can't imagine any reliever getting a top 5 vote this season, although Miller might have if he was healthy all year.

Like any formula, it's not perfect, but it is 10/10 in the past 5 years in picking the winner.

Post #9 » by **Duffman100** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:38 pm

kayliecee wrote:
Raptor_Guy wrote:That formula shows that 7 of the top 10 AL CY Young candidates should be relievers, and they see nothing wrong with that formula?

"They" are Bill James and Rob Neyer, but I love the way you look down your nose at them. What are your qualifications?

Well...he has a point...

Jays4WS · Post #10 » by **Jays4WS** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:39 pm

Raptor_Guy wrote:That formula shows that 7 of the top 10 AL CY Young candidates should be relievers, and they see nothing wrong with that formula?

That kid lives and dies by formulas. No sense arguing with him, Pillar is the GOAT apparently to him.

You are right though. It's pretty pathetic 7 of the pitchers on that list are relievers.

kayliecee · Post #11 » by **kayliecee** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:55 pm

Duffman100 wrote:
kayliecee wrote:
Raptor_Guy wrote:That formula shows that 7 of the top 10 AL CY Young candidates should be relievers, and they see nothing wrong with that formula?

"They" are Bill James and Rob Neyer, but I love the way you look down your nose at them. What are your qualifications?

Well...he has a point...

Not really. You can cherry pick literally any formula and find holes. It's 10/10 in picking the winners since 2010. Is 10 out of 10 better than some formula he'd come up with? To me, when someone presents something, you can try to find holes or you can look for the things that make sense or you can look at both. A lot of people on here are always looking for the things that are wrong or bad or negative, and I don't have time for negative people. It's funny that they are usually raps fans that have watched about 20 baseball games in their life and have that raps board mentality.

kayliecee · Post #12 » by **kayliecee** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:03 pm

Jays4WS wrote:
Raptor_Guy wrote:That formula shows that 7 of the top 10 AL CY Young candidates should be relievers, and they see nothing wrong with that formula?

That kid lives and dies by formulas. No sense arguing with him, Pillar is the GOAT apparently to him.

You are right though. It's pretty pathetic 7 of the pitchers on that list are relievers.

Here's the thing about Pillar, since you took it off topic. People say he sucks, but he's ranked 72nd in the league in WAR. I'm pretty sure that the people who say he sucks don't rank in the top 72 in the world at anything they do and probably never will, so all of you must really suck at what you do. I've never said he's the GOAT (and you are a liar for saying that, which we both already knew about you). His hitting needs a lot of work. But as an overall baseball player, he's one of the most valuable on the team and he works hard at his craft. You don't even work hard at understanding baseball. And I'm not taking the "him" bait because you are about to go back on my special list anyway. Suffice to say, your tiny little testicles would shrivel at the idea of talking about me to my face like that. Bye.

rarefind · Post #13 » by **rarefind** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:06 pm

kayliecee wrote:
Raptor_Guy wrote:That formula shows that 7 of the top 10 AL CY Young candidates should be relievers, and they see nothing wrong with that formula?

"They" are Bill James and Rob Neyer, but I love the way you look down your nose at them. What are your qualifications?

Qualified or not. This is a very valid flaw in their formula. Dominant closers who will have pitched approximately 70 innings are not as valuable to a team as a pitcher who approaches 200 innings. There is a reason why we have only seen 2 closers win this award in over 25 years. All things considered, half the pitchers on this list (AL and NL) are closers. That is definitely a flaw, no question. I have no problem with a closer winning this award after a spectacular season but it essentially would have to be near historic which is exactly how the award is handled amongst relievers. By this logic, Mark Lowe should be there right behind Wade Davis? That makes sense? Just because Bill James and Rob Neyer say so doesn't mean it has to be accepted by everyone.

Post #14 » by **Duffman100** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:09 pm

kayliecee wrote:
Not really. You can cherry pick literally any formula and find holes. It's 10/10 in picking the winners since 2010. Is 10 out of 10 better than some formula he'd come up with? To me, when someone presents something, you can try to find holes or you can look for the things that make sense or you can look at both. A lot of people on here are always looking for the things that are wrong or bad or negative, and I don't have time for negative people. It's funny that they are usually raps fans that have watched about 20 baseball games in their life and have that raps board mentality.

It's called critical thinking and yes, he has a point. It's not saying the formula has no merit, but just that it needs to be tweaked because it clearly has a flaw.

Kevin Willis · Post #15 » by **Kevin Willis** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:20 pm

The relievers have performed better than the starters in the AL this year. That's just what it is. The question should be why the starters are underperforming - is it because the batters are so strong this year? Is that why NL starting pitchers have such strong numbers? If that's the case doesn't that make Price's 176 even more remarkable because it would be top 3 in the NL against two uber pitchers in Grienke and Arrieta?

Britton and Miller are just beasts. Thanks for the link - Price should win it this year, especially if Houston drops out of the playoffs.

Skin Blues · Post #16 » by **Skin Blues** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:43 pm

kayliecee wrote:
Skin Blues wrote:It does seem to be glitchy. Might have been formulated back when starting pitchers used to throw a lot more innings. Haven't checked, but I imagine IP/start for the CY candidates has gone down significantly over the past decade. Can't imagine any reliever getting a top 5 vote this season, although Miller might have if he was healthy all year.

Like any formula, it's not perfect, but it is 10/10 in the past 5 years in picking the winner.

Right, but we want to judge the process, not the results. It might have been great 10 years ago but if they think Shawn Tolleson is the Cy Young winner if Keuchel wasn't having this kind of year, then it's broken.

Shimso · Post #17 » by **Shimso** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:10 pm

Is that ESPN predictor excluding Price based on only counting games played with Toronto and therefore not meeting a GP threshold (although it appears that they need to include an IP threshold)? Because I've seen some sites show really low RBI & hit information for Tulo & Revere because they're counting the COL/PHI stats separately from the TOR stats.

kayliecee · Post #18 » by **kayliecee** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:41 pm

Skin Blues wrote:
kayliecee wrote:
Skin Blues wrote:It does seem to be glitchy. Might have been formulated back when starting pitchers used to throw a lot more innings. Haven't checked, but I imagine IP/start for the CY candidates has gone down significantly over the past decade. Can't imagine any reliever getting a top 5 vote this season, although Miller might have if he was healthy all year.

Like any formula, it's not perfect, but it is 10/10 in the past 5 years in picking the winner.

Right, but we want to judge the process, not the results. It might have been great 10 years ago but if they think Shawn Tolleson is the Cy Young winner if Keuchel wasn't having this kind of year, then it's broken.

Not 10 years ago. It picked the winners in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. I'd bet not a single person was more successful than that :wink:

Anyway, It's a formula to discuss. We'll see if Greinke and Price win at the end of the year.

kayliecee · Post #19 » by **kayliecee** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:46 pm

Duffman100 wrote:
kayliecee wrote:
Not really. You can cherry pick literally any formula and find holes. It's 10/10 in picking the winners since 2010. Is 10 out of 10 better than some formula he'd come up with? To me, when someone presents something, you can try to find holes or you can look for the things that make sense or you can look at both. A lot of people on here are always looking for the things that are wrong or bad or negative, and I don't have time for negative people. It's funny that they are usually raps fans that have watched about 20 baseball games in their life and have that raps board mentality.

It's called critical thinking and yes, he has a point. It's not saying the formula has no merit, but just that it needs to be tweaked because it clearly has a flaw.

Right. Every formula has a flaw. I just abhor negative people. If you want to say it's not perfect, of course it's not. It's trying to predict how human beings will vote. But it's more accurate than any other formula that I know of.

Post #20 » by **Duffman100** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:47 pm

kayliecee wrote:Right. Every formula has a flaw. I just abhor negative people. If you want to say it's not perfect, of course it's not. It's trying to predict how human beings will vote. But it's more accurate than any other formula that I know of.

I think,

a) you're taking personally
b) you're reading way too much into it.