I think Doc has a pretty good offence to support him, so he's not entirely on his own. I still think he's got a legitimate shot at the Cy Young (and one based on merit).

Doc is ahead of everyone in innings pitched and has a shot at posting 260 innings this year, which would be a phenomenal total. He's working in a very good hitter's park without great defensive support. He has to face the two best park-adjusted offenses in the AL more than any other ace pitcher.

Hudson: Lots of innings, but good defensive support and a very good pitcher's park make his ERA look better than it should.

Loaiza: Soft schedule, neutral park.

Mussina: Not nearly as many innings and a decent pitcher's park helps his ERA.

Pedro: Missed too much time, doesn't go deep into games.

Is there any other serious contender for the Cy Young?

While many of those points may be true voters pretty much just look at wins and ERA and make their choice. I would think Halladay would have to get his ERA under 3 to have a real chance.

Pat Hentgen, never dominant, was always competitive

3 All Star games and a Cy Young. How much do you want out of the guy before he was *occasionally* dominant?

Hudson: Lots of innings, but good defensive support and a very good pitcher's park make his ERA look better than it should.

Mussina: Not nearly as many innings and a decent pitcher's park helps his ERA.

If you're going to discount Hudson because of his teams defense you have to reward Mussina for putting up that ERA with his defense.

Remaining five Halladay opponents: Detroit, @ Tampa, @ Detroit, @ Baltimore, Cleveland. Unless they give him an extra day off so he misses the Orioles, in which case he gets to work in the final two home series and would face Tampa again.

Roy has a great chance to finish 22-7 (or better) and should reach 200 strikeouts. However, if the White Sox make the playoffs, Loaiza will probably win the Cy. Especially if he shuts down the Twins and Royals, each of whom he meets twice down the stretch.

Pistol,

Yes, Mussina relative to Hudson, but I don't see defensive support as being a big factor for Mussina relative to Halladay. Their park-adjusted ERAs are probably about equal and Doc's got about 25 innings on Moose to date.

Mussina also has had an even tougher schedule than Halladay. Mussina and Victor Zambrano have faced the best offenses of any pitcher in baseball, though Roy is not far behind.

I wouldn't vote for Halladay in my top 3 right now, but he's close. (I had him second to Pedro last year).

One big advantage of Moose and Loaiza over Hudson and Halladay, in my mind, is that they have allwoed very few unearned runs.

Their park-adjusted ERAs are probably about equal and Doc's got about 25 innings on Moose to date.

BP's VORP analysis has Mussina half a run ahead on park-adjusted RA, there's a swing of .21 runs from the raw numbers. A similar swing on ERA would leave Mussina only .2 or so ahead on ERA, but I'm loath to give pitchers much credit for unearned runs allowed.

Personally, I just can't see how you could examine the case for Loaiza and Halladay and conclude Halladay was ahead right now. He *might* move ahead if Loaiza has a bad September, loses a couple of key games and gets roughed up. But hell, I think Loaiza is the AL MVP as of this morning, and while I don't use exactly the same criteria for MVP as for the Cy, Roy Halladay is pretty far down my MVP list.

Except... except except except.

I hadn't been thinking about the AL/NL thing in looking at the quality of batters faced thing. Loaiza is below the MLB average in quality of batters faced, but in AL terms only... wow. He's *last* among all AL pitchers, by a decent margin too. In other words, he's faced by far the weakest hitters of any AL starter.

That's gotta count for something. I still think his marvelous eight wins by two runs or less is going to outweigh it, but I think you've gotta take that seriously.

The margin's not quite as wide when you take into account Loaiza's own impact on those opposition hitters. It's still there, though. He's at the bottom of a close bunch at the very bottom.

Craig,

I don't agree. The 2 best park-adjusted offenses in the AL are the Red Sox and Yankees. Seattle, Toronto and Oakland are 3rd-5th.

Craig,

I don't like run average - you've just adding more pollution from the defence.

Loaiuza has also pitched 33.1 fewer innings (than Doc) so far. That's a big factor in my book.

Making a ballpark estimate that Doc is worth 2.5 runs per 9 IP more than a replacement starter (taking park into account), that's over 9 runs saved for Doc based on his IP advantage.

Prorating Doc's ER allowed to Loaiza's innings, we get 75.76 ER to Lo's 52. When the 9.25 runs calculated above are included, Loaiza's Earned Run edge reduces to about 14.5.

Comiskey is neutral, while Skydome has increased offence by about 10% this year. Add in the strength of schedule factor and I think much of Loaiza's advantage disappears.

I'm not saying that Doc is clearly ahead of everyone, but I am trying to make the case that he isn't clearly behind anyone either.

While many of those points may be true voters pretty much just look at wins and ERA and make their choice.

Pistol's exactly right. Some voters are progressive enough to consider other statistical looks but I'm sure they are the minority. Robert, if you're going to talk about contenders for the Cy Young, you have to factor that in. Most voters won't park adjust, most voters won't consider strength of opposition and most voters won't consider defensive support. If you want to talk about who's been the best starting pitcher in the AL this year, well, that's an entirely different discussion.

I'm not saying the current voting environment is justified, I'm simply being realistic.

Most voters won't park adjust, most voters won't consider strength of opposition and most voters won't consider defensive support.

I think you are right - anyway I'm more interested in the question of who SHOULD win the award rather than who WILL.

It's a very sad commentary on the state of the baseball world when the above quoted passage describes a bunch of "experts" who probably consider themselves the most qualified group of people to decide these things.

http://economics.about.com
Robert, if you're going to talk about contenders for the Cy Young, you have to factor that in. Most voters won't park adjust, most voters won't consider strength of opposition and most voters won't consider defensive support. If you want to talk about who's been the best starting pitcher in the AL this year, well, that's an entirely different discussion.

Right. There's really two questions being asked.

The Positive Question: Who will win?

The Normative Question: Who should win?

It's always important to keep in mind which one you're trying to answer.

I think the answer to 1 is Loaiza. I can't really answer #2 until the end of the season. Too much can still happen.

Mike

Actually there are three questions, although the third question can often be disregarded:

Who do you want to win?

I'm just saying.

For once, Moffat's right. We can't answer some questions until the end of the season. It's too close to call and one rout for any pitcher could knock him right out of contention.

But if the season ended TODAY, my answers to the 3 questions are:

1) Who will win? LOAIZA
2) Who should win? MUSSINA
3) Who do I want to win? HALLADAY, of course

Spicol,

Can you make a case for Mussina over Halladay?

http://economics.about.com
Actually there are three questions, although the third question can often be disregarded:

Who do you want to win?

Good point. The problem is, this question isn't really interesting to discuss:

Aaron: I want Hudson to win.

Bob: No you don't.. you're rooting for Clemens.

Aaron: You're not the boss of me, JERK.

Mike

The problem is, this question isn't really interesting to discuss

Yes it is, and you know it is.

(I am the boss of you)

I don't like run average - you've just adding more pollution from the defence.

I'm of two minds on this, whether run average, on average, is adding more pollution or removing more useful information. I think it's close, but I tend to the side that says it removes more useful information than it corrects for. I have no data to show this... just a general feeling. I hate the fact that strikeout strikeout double two-base error double double double double double double is zero earned runs. It's closer to five runs than seven, yes, but it's a lot closer to seven than it is to zero.

That's an extreme example, naturally.

Can you make a case for Mussina over Halladay?

Well, he's a bigger big game pitcher.

Kidding...can't do it right now, since my procrastination can only bear small bursts, but sure.

Just one note on Halladay. His 260 IP might send some writers screaming about the Jays overworking another young starter (remember Hentgen?), but Halladay often goes late into games with very low pitch counts. As we know, it's the number of pitches that takes its toll on an arm, not the number of innings (you listening Alan Trammell?).

Anyways, has anyone looked into how economical Halladay is in comparison to other starters? I'd like to see a pitches/IP stat for him and some other "aces".

Luckily, ESPN's amazing stat package has a pitches per inning entry.

If you click here, it should take you to a list of MLB ERA qualifiers, sorted by most pitches per inning. (Can't go by fewest, the one main thing wrong with the ESPN stat package) The link should take you to the bottom of the list.

The top five? Halladay (yes, he's #1 at 13.9 per inning), Mulder, Wells, Ponson, and Hudson.

Worst five? Leiter, Estes, Helling, Freddy Garcia, and Adam Eaton. I was shocked to see Kerry Wood is only 8th.

Despite having the fewest pitches per inning, by the way, Halladay still ranks 4th in total number of pitches thrown this season, giving an idea of just how much of a workhorse he is.

Halladay now has 234 IP, putting him 20 2/3 ahead of Hudson in second place.

Incidentally, Mike Maroth may have the 20 losses, but Cory Lidle has allowed the most runs and the most earned runs of any pitcher in baseball.

Funny, I always assumed pitch efficiency was part of the Beane philosophy, but never thought to check it out.
I assume this is something JP looks for as well. Lidle is pretty good (63rd out of 93) despite his propensity for giving up 35 hits per inning. Escobar and Hendrickson, on the other hand, are near the bottom - maybe we won't be seeing Kelvim next year after all.

Among ERA qualifiers, Mark Hendrickson ranks 95th out of 97 in slugging percentage allowed. In OPS allowed, he's tiedfor last with Danny Graves.

I always assumed pitch efficiency was part of the Beane philosophy, but never thought to check it out.

It's a corollary of throwing strikes, which is the number one, "above all else" criterion the Jays have in evaluating pitchers. Now a pitcher doesn't determine the length of an at-bat, obviously - the hitter does. What the pitcher can do, is to limit the options of the hitter. If you keep throwing strikes, the hitter can't take pitches. So a guy who throws lots of strikes (especially strike one) is going to have short at-bats... particularly because for many hitters, getting two strikes on them forces them to "try to put the ball in play" which ends the at-bat.

Hendrickson is (to me) a notorious "ball one" guy... and that more than anything else is going to spell his doom. But in fact, Escobar and Hendrickson and Lidle don't show up as well in the pitches per inning stat, because they take more batters to record the same number of outs. Hendrickson and Lidle are both among the top 35 guys in pitches per batter, which is good. Problem is, those at-bats aren't ending in outs!

Escobar is right about average, at 39th out of 97 in most pitches per at-bat. That's still not too bad.

260 IP for Halladay? Silly me.

Thanks for the link Craig B.

Can you make a case for Mussina over Halladay?

After a weekend-long absence, I sat down to key my case for Mussina over Halladay but have lost all motivation to do so. You see, any argument I'd make is now somewhat moot thanks to the fluid nature of September award races. A 10-inning shutout? A game score of 90? Mighty impressive.

When it comes to Cy Young races and who SHOULD win, I have a tendency to forgive small gaps in the stats reflecting runs allowed, since those stats are so heavily impacted by defense and park as Robert says, and am critical of those things more reflective of a pitcher's personal contribution. My argument was to be centered around K-rates (at 8.27K/9, Mussina has a significant edge over Halladay's 6.81K/9) and how these 2 guys are in a class of their own when it comes to control (both are well ahead of the other CY candidates in K/BB and while Roy leads Mike, it's not as significant as the K-rate advantage Mussina has). Aside from IP, most other things between the two were very similar: home run rates, strength of opposition etc. So, all other things being equal or close to it, the power/control combo of Mussina had won me over.

That’s the short, generic version because now, after Saturday’s game, I’m not as sure. Using K-rates along with runs allowed as a sign of dominance is a little clearer for me than using runs allowed by itself, adjusting for park and defense or not, but now the gap in runs allowed is much smaller. For me, Mussina is right there, but Halladay's case is obviously much improved. Mike won’t win, but maybe he should.

I don't see how you can get around Doc's massive edge over Moose in IP - given how similar the rest of their stats are.