I’m sure some of you are tired of our seeming fixation on the commentary surrounding the AL Cy Young race, but when you see something as aggressively stupid and as hostile to rationality as the column ESPN New York’s Rob Parker posted in the wee hours this morning, you’ll understand why we go on like we do.
Indeed, the piece is so bad that I have no choice but to fisk the sucker. And it starts out with a bang:
The stats geeks will win.
Yay! Wins! That’s the most important thing, right? If we win, we’re better! Parker proves that himself beyond the shadow of a doubt and with geometric logic! In your face, dude!
Matched up against Rays ace left-hander David Price, Sabathia could have made it nearly impossible for the guys who value stats over wins to deny him the league’s best pitcher award. Sabathia, however, picked the wrong time to be flat-out awful.
Last I checked, “wins” were a stat. One definition of the word “geek” is a person with a strong, near-fetishlike fandom of some narrow thing or another. Parker obsesses on wins more than anyone at GenCon obsesses over Magic: The Gathering. How does that make him less of a stat geek than someone who looks at multiple metrics to analyze a pitcher’s value?
Over the past few weeks, some potential voters have been making a statistical case for King Felix, who leads the AL with a stingy 2.31 ERA. He also has the most innings pitched and the most strikeouts. He hasn’t won more often because his team has a woeful offense, one of the worst in a long time. Still, Sabathia, who entered the game as the AL’s only 20-game winner, had to be the favorite. Those other stats are fine, but they should never be more important than winning.
See, if you simply say “wins are teh awsum!” I can at least forgive you because, hey, maybe you’re just ignorant and you don’t know any better. But if you actually acknowledge that win totals are at least in part a function of the run support a guy gets -- and if you acknowledge innings pitched and strikeouts -- yet you
make wins the determining factor in your analysis, it shows that you are simply unable to comprehend the game of baseball. Not just stats, mind you. It shows that you really do not understand what is going on on a baseball diamond. It’s the equivalent of watching Payton Manning go 40-44 with 500 yards passing, 6 touchdowns and no picks and then saying he sucks because the Colts lost the game 53-50 in overtime.
It would be one thing if Sabathia had 20 wins and a 5-plus ERA. By any standards, that’s not a good ERA, and it would signal to you that that he’s won games despite mediocre pitching. But that’s not the case.
No, it’s not. He’s pitched just fine, in fact. But the Cy Young isn’t about whether someone has merely pitched well or if he has avoided mediocrity. It’s about whether he has pitched better than every other pitcher in his league. To judge CC Sabathia’s actual performance against some hypothetical CC Sabathia performance is to totally miss the point. And why the hypothetical Sabathia’s ERA is more relevant to Parker than Felix Hernandez’s actual ERA is beyond me.
Dan Levy pointed out this morning
Plus, Sabathia is pitching in the toughest division in baseball with the Red Sox, Rays and Blue Jays.
that the Yankees’ AL East opponents have an average of 78.25 wins while Seattle’s AL West opponents have an average of 78.7 wins. Hernandez didn’t get to face the dreadful first-half Orioles. Sabathia never had to face the Yankees. There are many ways to slice this argument, but there’s no way to slice it that shows Sabathia facing significantly tougher competition than Hernandez over the course of the season.
He’s also on the biggest stage in the game.
Note: Henceforth every Yankees player automatically gets a three-length “big stage” head start in postseason awards voting.
And let’s not forget that Sabathia has pitched in games that matter.
I would like for a writer to once -- just once -- ask a player from a losing team how he feels about playing in games “that don’t matter.”
And for all those geeks who believe Sabathia’s success is based on run support by the mighty Yankees’ lineup, they couldn’t be more wrong. If that were the case, A.J. Burnett would have 20 wins, too. But he hasn’t pitched well enough to win.
There is no American League starter with at least 140 innings pitched who has had worse run support than Felix Hernandez. There is no American League pitcher with at least 140 innings pitched who has had better run support than CC Sabathia. The difference is over three and a half runs per game
. We can quibble about what it would take to get A.J. Burnett 20 wins (Radioactive spider bite? Tainted cold cuts in the opposing team’s pregame spread each time he starts?) but if Parker cannot grasp that the difference in run support accounts for Sabathia’s advantage in the one stat in which he bests Hernandez -- wins -- he’s either dangerously stupid or sickeningly dishonest.
If Sabathia, indeed, lost the Cy Young on this night, Price should become the front runner. He has 18 victories, and he won the big game in a big spot on the biggest stage. That’s what Cy Young winners do.
If wins are truly the measure of a pitcher, why doesn’t Parker acknowledge that Sabathia still has more wins than Price? Doesn’t that matter? Is this one game -- last night’s game -- more important to the Cy Young race than the 30+ starts each man had before it? I mean, applying a preposterous, willfully ignorant standard for the Cy Young Award is bad enough as it is. Applying that preposterous, willfully ignorant standard unevenly just compounds matters.
But despite all of the stuff above, my biggest beef with Parker’s piece is not its logical flaws. I don’t care if he’d vote for Sabathia if given the chance. I know Sabathia and Price will get votes, and that’s fine. People have different standards with this stuff, and everyone who is given a vote is entitled to vote the way they choose as long as they follow the rules set down by the BBWAA. And even though it seems like it at times, I’m certainly not going to rip apart every writer with whom I disagree when it comes to awards voting.
No, what has me so angry with Parker’s piece is that he does the two things which sabermetically-oriented writers are constantly criticized for doing: (a) fixating on a single metric -- here wins instead of WAR or VORP or whatever -- and letting it almost totally dictate his choice; and (b) insulting those with whom he disagrees.
The premise of the piece -- that Sabathia won’t win the Cy Young Award because of last night’s game -- is a perfectly defensible one. I agree, it almost certainly cost him votes. The premise could have been supported, however, without the ill-informed and mean-spirited swipes at writers who look beyond wins in their assessments. Indeed, it could have been supported without reference to Felix Hernandez at all. If Parker truly thinks it came down to Sabathia and Price, great, write a column about how Price bested Sabathia. It would have drawn no ire from me.
But he didn’t do that. He decided to go after people. I and many others have been taken to task by mainstream writers for such an approach countless times over the years. Will anyone besides the sabermetrics guys hit Parker for doing the same thing?
I’m not holding my breath.