Jump to content

NL Cy Young: Kershaw or Scherzer?


Frobby

NL Cy Young: Kershaw or Scherzer?  

2 members have voted

  1. 1. Who should win the NL Cy Young?

    • Clayton Kershaw
    • Max Scherzer
    • Other
      0


Recommended Posts

Kershaw: 18-4, 176 IP, 2.31 ERA, 202 K's (10.39 K/9), 0.95 WHIP, 4.6 fWAR, 5.0 rWAR.

Scherzer: 16-6, 202 IP, 2.51 ERA, 268 K's (12.02 K/9), 0.90 WHIP, 6.0 fWAR, 7.5 rWAR.

WAR seems to think this is an easy call in Scherzer's favor.    What say you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, backwardsk said:

Scherzer, easy.  The best ability is avaibilty.    He made four more starts.

And lost them all, and then some.   The Dodgers were 23-4 when Kershaw started; the Nats were 21-10 when Scherzer started.     So I don't see how those 4 extra starts trumps 2 extra wins.    I fully recognize the fallacies of relying on W-L record or the team's record, but to me those measures have some relevance if your argument is simply that Scherzer pitched more.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scherzer,  we need to retire the pitching win completely.  And I also don't care about "record of team in games that he pitches" all that much, since there are also things there outside of his control.........although I guess it is a tad better.  Scherzer pitched better so he deserves it.    That K rate is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Aglets said:

Scherzer,  we need to retire the pitching win completely.  And I also don't care about "record of team in games that he pitches" all that much, since there are also things there outside of his control.........although I guess it is a tad better.  Scherzer pitched better so he deserves it.    That K rate is ridiculous.

I guess I put more stock in ERA than some people do.    The objective of a pitcher is to prevent runs from scoring.   Kershaw did that better than Scherzer.   I'm not interested in theoretical constructs of what should have or could have happened.    

I think it's a very close call between the two, but perhaps the voters won't see it that way.    We'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I guess I put more stock in ERA than some people do.    The objective of a pitcher is to prevent runs from scoring.   Kershaw did that better than Scherzer.   I'm not interested in theoretical constructs of what should have or could have happened.    

I think it's a very close call between the two, but perhaps the voters won't see it that way.    We'll see.

I don't pay much attention to ERA.  Why should a pitcher pitching in Colorado behind a terrible defense be graded the same as a pitcher in Oakland behind a great defense?

Why should a pitcher in the deadball era be graded the same as a pticher who played in the height of the steroid era?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/3/2017 at 11:32 AM, Can_of_corn said:

I don't pay much attention to ERA.  Why should a pitcher pitching in Colorado behind a terrible defense be graded the same as a pitcher in Oakland behind a great defense?

Why should a pitcher in the deadball era be graded the same as a pticher who played in the height of the steroid era?

I agree you have to adjust for those things.    I overstated my point.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...