Not to nit-pick, but considering what Pedro was like with the Sox, and what Kevin Brown was like with… well, everybody, wouldn’t the last non-jackass starter before Greinke be Greg Maddux in ‘95?

How, in the name of Cap Anson, did you find an 1884 New York Times article on weight’s relationship to movement on the spur of a boxscore?  Now, that’s sportswriting!

I don’t think I’ve ever read a 19th century NYTimes article before, and I suppose that I was vaguely conscious of the fact that articles would be written in that style, but honestly it’s kind of mind-boggling how stark the difference is between then and now. Yes, I realize 1884 was a LONG time ago, that the century and a quarter that have passed probably brought more changes than any other equivalent time period in the history of humanity, but it’s the realization that the Times represents one continuous entity throughout this time frame that’s so…well trippy for lack of a better word. Also, clicking through from a blog to an electronic version of an article written in 1884 is quite the trip in and of itself. Maybe I’m taking this too far, but frankly I think it’s a heck of a lot more interesting to think about than the A’s and the Indians right now.

Will someone please give a substantive arguement denying Greinke the Cy?  I’m just curious as to what tenet(s) would support such an arguement outside of an emotional one.

Where are the downsides for his consideration?  Please help - I’m equally baffled.

Have a great Friday everybody.

Pedro was (is?) a great pitcher, but he was certainly full of himself.  I’m not so sure Maddux is the guy either, he did enjoy taking a piss on rookies in the shower.

I think Soccia just likes getting his pitchers big save totals.  The better reliever Jespen was moving right along through the sox order, gives up ine hit and he goes to the “closer”.

@Wade - I’ve only heard two arguments against giving the Cy to Greinke.  The first is he doesn’t have as many wins as some people would like.  The second, adroitly (?) espoused by Harold Reynolds on MLB Network last night, is he isn’t doing it in AL East.

Now, I don’t know that either of these are the “substantive” argument you wanted to hear, but there you go.  The wins argument has already been debated to death and, we hope, debunked.  But the second argument in particular is amazingly ridiculous in that it implies that all AL pitchers are to be discounted unless they pitch in the AL East, and really funny considering that no AL Cy Young winner has come from that division since 2003.

Thanks, Jeff- couldn’t have said it better myself. I’ll be the first to say he earned the MVP in ‘99 and got screwed out of it, and he’s a first ballot HOF’er but, as a Mets fan, I’ll also be the first to admit how his “immaturity” in ‘04 suddenly turned “refreshing” in ‘05. Since seeing Gooden in ‘85, he the guy I’d give the ball to in a must-win game, but the “drill Babe Ruth in the ass” swagger was over the top.

BTW, if Maddux now qualifies as borderline jack-ass, does that mean we have to do a credit check on Billy Swift next?

Isn’t there something in ethics about not setting up strawman arguments, then attacking that strawman as if it was an argument?  Or is that brand of bullshit only reserved for long-winded douchebaggery moralizing about how Barry Bonds ruined America, or whatever the #### it is you spouted.  People didn’t say Smoltz was great for Boston, they said he was better than his ERA indicated.  You eventually agreed on that point, if memory serves.

Kevin…no straw man argument. I mean it—-I have read many comments from posters like you arguing that Dice-K had a lousy season last year, despite his W-L and ERA. I read people here say that Smoltz was pitching the same in Boston as in St. Louis, despite the obvious ERA and OBA discrepancy. There is a trend in sabermetrics to go beyond “wins and losses aren’t everything” to “wins and losses mean nothing.” And I think when it comes to a starter with a losing record getting the Cy Young, as it will if these people win the day, the Cy Young won’t be a coherent award any more.
Are you capable of disagreeing with someone without calling them a douchebag? Just curious. It’s is pretty curious to be accused of a strawman argument, and then to have the accuser cite an argument I never made or would make.
Barry Bonds did not ruin America.
Manny Ramirez did.

(Kidding!)

Slight distinction - I called your missive against Barry Bonds (the one Keith Law picked up on, not sure if there were others) douchebaggery; I’m sure you’re quite the upstanding fellow, and in no way a douchebag (other than, you know, being a Red Sox fan). 

Now that we’ve got the assorted insults and past grievances aired and out of the way, let’s get down to the meat of the relevant discussion - whether or not “superficial” statistics such as wins/losses and ERA (superficial in the sense that they don’t measure underlying performance, no negative connotation implied) should even be considered when determining the CYA.  Starting with wins and losses, my position is unequivocally no.  Wins and losses are an indicator of the cumulative performance of the offense, defense, and pitching in an arbitrary set of baseball games; in our case, we are concerned with the subset of games in which a given pitcher receives a decision.  Zack Greinke’s 14-8 record tells you absolutely nothing at all about how well he’s pitched.  Dan Haren has an identical record, matched with a quite excellent (but not otherworldly) performance.  Derek Lowe is just a smidge off, at 14-9, and he’s got an ERA+ of 92.  W/L tells us these three pitchers have been very similar this year, while nothing could be further from the truth.  Greinke’s and Haren’s records have been quite negatively impacted by the other factors on their team, while Lowe has been aided by them.

Now, given that we’ve shown that W/L records don’t tell us very much about a pitcher, is your hypothetical 9-16 pitcher excluded from greatness?  On a truly morbid team, no.  Looking at Zack Greinke’s game log, we find 21 starts where he gave up at least one run, making him eligible to take a loss.  We also find only three games where he pitched a complete game shutout, where the bullpen couldn’t possibly screw him out of a win.  Therefore, it is theoretically possible, however unlikely, that Greinke could have turned in his exact same performance this year and posted a 9-16 record, just by making the offense and bullpen more putrid.  Thus, I submit that W/L should be summarily ignored, as they are but a bad proxy for pitching awesomeness, and said awesomeness can be easily assessed with other stats.  I’ll address ERA in the next post, as it’s a bit tricky.