I’m frankly stunned that Felix Hernandez won the AL Cy Young Award. I guess I’ll have to chalk it up to not believing that the Baseball Writer’s Association had embraced the new statistics. It seems that the last couple of Cy Young votes in both leagues (Roy Halladay excluded) are evidence that the sabrmetric stats are beginning to overtake the more traditional stats.That’s neither a totally good thing nor a totally bad thing. Just because the stats are new (or old) doesn’t make them better. It also doesn’t mean that previous results were wrong. Take Juan Marichal as an example.
I’ve heard people say that Marichal is the best pitcher to never win a Cy Young Award. Actually Walter Johnson (or Cy Young) is. What they mean is that since the award was established, Marichal is the most overlooked. Well, maybe. There have been a number of truly fine pitchers that haven’t won the award, but I won’t argue against Marichal. But by using the traditional stats, is he really particularly overlooked? The heart of Marichal’s career is 1963-1969 with a nod toward 1971. I’ve heard it said that for the entire period Marichal had better numbers than any of the pitchers who won. So what? The Cy Young Award is for yearly, not career, excellence. You want career excellence? Look to the Hall of Fame. If you look at his yearly stats compared to the Cy Young Award winners the conclusion is at best mixed, and at worst you have to conclude Marichal wasn’t rooked. Here’s the stats for the Cy Young Award winners in 1963 through 1971 (with 1967 and 1970 left off because Marichal had down years those two seasons). The stats used are wins/winning percentage/ ERA/ strikeouts/shutouts. Remember from 1963 through 1966 there is only one award, so for Marichal to win he must be the consensus best pitcher in all of Major League Baseball to win. From 1967 through 1971 there are two awards, one for each league, so Marichal has to be only the consensus National League pitcher. Also remember that in 1964 the AL pitcher won, so the numbers don’t exactly compare. All other years the winner involved is an NL pitcher. Marichal’s corresponding stats follow each year’s winner.
1963: 25/833/188/306/11 (Koufax), Marichal: 25/758/241/248/5
1964: 20/690/165/207/11 (Chance), Marichal: 21/724/248/206/4
1965: 26/765/204/382/8 (Koufax), Marichal: 22/629/213/240/10
1966: 27/750/173/317/5 (Koufax), Marichal: 25/806/223/222/4
1968: 22/710/112/268/13 (Gibson), Marichal: 26/743/243/218/5
1969: 25/781/22/208/5 (Seaver), Marichal: 21/656/210/205/8
1971: 24/649/277/253/5 (Jenkins), Marichal: 18/621/294/159/4
So Marichal doesn’t win any of those. Who do you like? Maybe Marichal, maybe the other guy, but in each case you can argue that Marichal did or didn’t get jobbed. The closest, to me, is 1964.
Now remember that between 1963 and 1971 the statistics revolution hadn’t occurred. We didn’t have Whip or ERA+ or War or most of the other stats (even Saves was just being floated) so you cannot use those to argue the voters got it wrong, because those stats didn’t exist. Now that they do, we can see a drift away from the traditional stats that is probably good for the game, but let’s not retroactively push them back into other eras and argue that they should have been used to come up with different results.
For those interested, I ran the Whip and ERA+ stats for Marichal and the Cy Young Award winner for the years above and list them below Whip/ERA+ with the winner first.
1963: 0.875/159 (Koufax), Marichal: 0.996/133
1964: 1.006/198 (Chance), Marichal: 1.089/144
1965: 0.855/160 (Koufax), Marichal: 0.914/169
1966: 0.985/190 (Koufax), Marichal: 0.859/167
1968: 0.853/258 (Gibson), Marichal: 1.047/123
1969: 1.039/165 (Seaver), Marichal: 0.994/168
1971: 1.049/142 (Jenkins), Marichal: 1.075, 117
Do those numbers make you think the award went the wrong place? If they do, remember they weren’t around in Juan Marichal’s great years.