Flanagan's 1979 Cy

[Just Regular]

Palmer and Steve Stone reminiscing during the rain delay got me poking around modern Fangraphs leaderboards to see how much history they'd captured.

They do have my favorite K-BB% for pitchers going back to 1916, and seeing Walter Johnson on familiar pages is kind of neat.

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=y&type=1&season=1979&month=0&season1=1979&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=1979-01-01&enddate=1979-12-31&sort=9,d

Anyhoo...Flanagan over JR Richard for his 1979 Cy looks like it maybe wasn't the writer's greatest choice.

[Moshagge3]

They had already started giving out a Cy Young for each league by '79 so Flanagan and Richard weren't in competition. Ron Guidry, Nolan Ryan, Tommy John, and Scott McGregor would have been the other ones in the AL with an argument for Cy.

[Just Regular]

16 hours ago, Moshagge3 said:

They had already started giving out a Cy Young for each league by '79 so Flanagan and Richard weren't in competition. Ron Guidry, Nolan Ryan, Tommy John, and Scott McGregor would have been the other ones in the AL with an argument for Cy.

My brain has been reprogrammed to AL Astros.    I went to the 1979 AL Cy Young Results three times, and couldn't figure out why Richard with CYA-3 on his player page wasn't listed behind Flanagan!

The NL results don't look good by today's standards either, though I do enjoy there that 20-loss Phil Niekro had the WAR black ink, while Bruce Sutter and Joe Niekro got the top two spots over JR Richard.

Phil Niekro let in 41 more ER in the 50 more IP he had over Richard that year, so I couldn't quite say why marginal extra work with an ERA in the 7.00 range got him BRef's 1.5 WAR edge.   I seem to remember HOU as a pitcher's park and ATL as not, so probably that is it.

[DrungoHazewood]

It can be fun to compare how we approach awards in the metrics era with how they approached them 30 or 40+ years ago, but everyone needs to keep in mind that in 1979 was the very, very, very early stages of the analytics revolution.  You can assume that the voters didn't even remotely consider most of the rationale that we use today.  

I'd guess that there was a very strong correlation between pitcher wins and Cy Young awards.  Along with that weird 70s and 80s (mis-) (over-) evaluation of relievers, although relievers of that era did pitch a lot more so perhaps somewhat justifiable when there was no way to meaningfully compare innings and leverage and overall value.  Flanagan got the award because he led the league in wins and was on the team that won the division. 

Interesting to compare Flanagan to Jerry Koosman.  On the surface they look very similar, but bb-ref has Flanagan at 3.8 WAR, Koosman 7.2.  Mostly that's down to defensive support.  They see the O's defense benefiting Flanagan to the tune of almost half a run a game, while Koosman's team was just a hair below average.  Fangraphs' valuations have Flanagan ahead by half a win.

I don't really know who would win if we knew then what we know today, really in either league.  Both are kind of muddled, nobody had a truly dominant season even by WAR. If you average rWAR and fWAR it's almost pulling names out of a hat. Jim Kern might have actually gotten some serious support as a reliever since he threw 142 innings to a 1.57 ERA and had a leverage index of 2.4. In today's terms he basically was someone's closer and their 8th inning guy. Every other day he threw two high leverage innings. Nobody ever does anything like that any more, probably because the next two years combined Kern threw 93 innings to a 91 ERA+ and more walks than Ks.  The rest of his career he had a 4.60 ERA/84 ERA+.

[drjohnnyfeva]

Let's make this simple... In the 1970's WINS are what won Cy Youngs.  But let's go deeper... In 1979, JR "Rodney" Richard won 18 games.  Flanny won 23!  JR had 2 billion strikeouts to Flannys 190.  JR's ERA was .271 and Flanny's was .307.  JR had 98 base on balls to Flanny's 70.  That's a clinic by today's standards in pitching efficiency on both their parts.  Flanny earned that CY and helped take his team to the WS.  ...Where I still lament losing to the "We are Family" Pirates, but I digress.  JR Richard's Astros finished 2nd in the West and out of the Playoffs. 

There's nothing unclear about Mike Flanagan winning the Cy Young that year.  He was the clear MVP of a team that made it to the WS.  JR Richard - who I loved hearing about on TWIB with Mel Allen, respectfully was a SO, fireballer who was damn exciting to watch and contributed to his pen winning games.  It was horrifying to see his career cut short.  His Topps card is still one I won't let go of. 

The Astros might have been the model that the O's followed under Buck.  No 20 game winners, but a bull pen that held and won.  Flanny deserved his Cy!

[SteveA]

21 hours ago, drjohnnyfeva said:

Let's make this simple... In the 1970's WINS are what won Cy Youngs.  But let's go deeper... In 1979, JR "Rodney" Richard won 18 games.  Flanny won 23!  JR had 2 billion strikeouts to Flannys 190.  JR's ERA was .271 and Flanny's was .307.  JR had 98 base on balls to Flanny's 70.  That's a clinic by today's standards in pitching efficiency on both their parts.  Flanny earned that CY and helped take his team to the WS.  ...Where I still lament losing to the "We are Family" Pirates, but I digress.  JR Richard's Astros finished 2nd in the West and out of the Playoffs. 

There's nothing unclear about Mike Flanagan winning the Cy Young that year.  He was the clear MVP of a team that made it to the WS.  JR Richard - who I loved hearing about on TWIB with Mel Allen, respectfully was a SO, fireballer who was damn exciting to watch and contributed to his pen winning games.  It was horrifying to see his career cut short.  His Topps card is still one I won't let go of. 

The Astros might have been the model that the O's followed under Buck.  No 20 game winners, but a bull pen that held and won.  Flanny deserved his Cy!

Flanny on the American League Orioles and Richard on the National League Astros were not competing for any award.

Bruce Sutter beat out Richard for the NL CY.   In fact, Richard was 3rd, in 2nd place was his teammate Joe Niekro.

[DrungoHazewood]

On 6/29/2022 at 10:01 PM, drjohnnyfeva said:

There's nothing unclear about Mike Flanagan winning the Cy Young that year.  He was the clear MVP of a team that made it to the WS.

Given the information available at the time and the voting pool Flanagan was a reasonable choice for the Cy Young.  But I'd have a hard time arguing that he was more valuable than Ken Singleton or Eddie Murray.

[InsideCoroner]

On 7/1/2022 at 9:05 PM, DrungoHazewood said:

Given the information available at the time and the voting pool Flanagan was a reasonable choice for the Cy Young.  But I'd have a hard time arguing that he was more valuable than Ken Singleton or Eddie Murray.

Apropos only of Singleton -- I was just looking up the 1974 trade that brought him to Baltimore. Singleton and Mike Torrez to the O's in return for Dave McNally, Rich Coggins and Bill Kirkpatrick. McNally had requested a trade from the Orioles, and wound up retiring mid-season in his first year with Montreal, while Coggins only managed 37 ABs for the Expos, and Kirkpatrick never made it out of AAA. Singleton put up over 30 WAR for us alone. And while Torrez only was here for one year, if you asked me to rattle off all the Orioles 20-game winners, Torrez is one I would most likely overlook. 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, InsideCoroner said:

Apropos only of Singleton -- I was just looking up the 1974 trade that brought him to Baltimore. Singleton and Mike Torrez to the O's in return for Dave McNally, Rich Coggins and Bill Kirkpatrick. McNally had requested a trade from the Orioles, and wound up retiring mid-season in his first year with Montreal, while Coggins only managed 37 ABs for the Expos, and Kirkpatrick never made it out of AAA. Singleton put up over 30 WAR for us alone. And while Torrez only was here for one year, if you asked me to rattle off all the Orioles 20-game winners, Torrez is one I would most likely overlook. 

I have to admit being a little perplexed by the Mike Torrez family of pitchers.  How they functioned.  The one year he was an Oriole he was 20-9, 3.06 and threw 270 innings.  That's sounds awesome, right?  Eh... in the context of Memorial Stadium and the O's defense and 1975 it was alright.  115 ERA+.  He walked 133 (led the league) and struck out just 119.  He allowed very few hits, just 238, and had a BABIP of just .258 (career .282), which points to the O's defense and the pitcher-friendliness of Memorial Stadium.  Didn't allow many homers.

Maybe the Orioles were pretty smart, not in the acquiring but in the offloading.  Maybe they knew the underlying performance didn't really support 20-9, so they packaged him in the Reggie deal. They kind of did the same thing the next year with Wayne Garland after his 20-win season, letting him go in free agency with (as far as I know) barely a counter-offer. 

But back to the pitchers living in the upside down, there were a number of these guys in the 1970s.  Pitchers who'd walk more than they struck out but still were effective.  Today that would be nonsense, just doesn't even remotely happen.  Today there are pitchers who have 3:1 K:BB ratios with ERAs of 7.00.  In '76 Ken Holtzman had a 2.86 ERA but 35 walks and 25 Ks in 97 innings.  Dyar Miller had a 2.94 out of the pen with 36 walks and 37 Ks. Doyle Alexander 64 innings, 24 walks, 17 Ks.  He'd only pitch another 15 years in the majors.  Don Stanhouse was like that for a few seasons.

The best way I can explain this working is to look at, say, the 1978 Twins.  Random middle of the pack team of that era.  They hit 82 homers all year.  Their best hitter, by far, was Rod Carew who hit .333 but had 41 extra base hits and only five homers.  Bob Randall was their semi-regular 2B, he didn't homer in 375 PAs.  They had seven of their listed nine starters with fewer than 10 homers, and nobody on the bench had more than four.  Also nobody struck out more than 88 times, and five of their starters struck out less than fifty times. As a team they grounded into 139 DPs, or 57 more than they hit homers.  So a lot of teams were made up of guys just trying to make contact and many pitchers of that era were more than happy to oblige so they could save their arms to try to throw a lot of complete games.  They didn't particularly care if they walked someone, because the next batter was probably Butch Wynegar and his .308 slugging percentage.  I think that if Ken Holtzman and Mike Torrez pitched to 2022 batters the way they pitched to 1978 batters they'd get beaten about the head and shoulders.

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I have to admit being a little perplexed by the Mike Torrez family of pitchers.  How they functioned.  The one year he was an Oriole he was 20-9, 3.06 and threw 270 innings.  That's sounds awesome, right?  Eh... in the context of Memorial Stadium and the O's defense and 1975 it was alright.  115 ERA+.  He walked 133 (led the league) and struck out just 119.  He allowed very few hits, just 238, and had a BABIP of just .258 (career .282), which points to the O's defense and the pitcher-friendliness of Memorial Stadium.  Didn't allow many homers.

Maybe the Orioles were pretty smart, not in the acquiring but in the offloading.  Maybe they knew the underlying performance didn't really support 20-9, so they packaged him in the Reggie deal. They kind of did the same thing the next year with Wayne Garland after his 20-win season, letting him go in free agency with (as far as I know) barely a counter-offer. 

But back to the pitchers living in the upside down, there were a number of these guys in the 1970s.  Pitchers who'd walk more than they struck out but still were effective.  Today that would be nonsense, just doesn't even remotely happen.  Today there are pitchers who have 3:1 K:BB ratios with ERAs of 7.00.  In '76 Ken Holtzman had a 2.86 ERA but 35 walks and 25 Ks in 97 innings.  Dyar Miller had a 2.94 out of the pen with 36 walks and 37 Ks. Doyle Alexander 64 innings, 24 walks, 17 Ks.  He'd only pitch another 15 years in the majors.  Don Stanhouse was like that for a few seasons.

The best way I can explain this working is to look at, say, the 1978 Twins.  Random middle of the pack team of that era.  They hit 82 homers all year.  Their best hitter, by far, was Rod Carew who hit .333 but had 41 extra base hits and only five homers.  Bob Randall was their semi-regular 2B, he didn't homer in 375 PAs.  They had seven of their listed nine starters with fewer than 10 homers, and nobody on the bench had more than four.  Also nobody struck out more than 88 times, and five of their starters struck out less than fifty times. As a team they grounded into 139 DPs, or 57 more than they hit homers.  So a lot of teams were made up of guys just trying to make contact and many pitchers of that era were more than happy to oblige so they could save their arms to try to throw a lot of complete games.  They didn't particularly care if they walked someone, because the next batter was probably Butch Wynegar and his .308 slugging percentage.  I think that if Ken Holtzman and Mike Torrez pitched to 2022 batters the way they pitched to 1978 batters they'd get beaten about the head and shoulders.

Sounds like your ideal scenario.

[DrungoHazewood]

32 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Sounds like your ideal scenario.

Why, because I'm not particularly fond of games with 19 strikeouts and five hits, three of which are homers?

No, I would rather see baseball where there are maybe 6-7 strikeouts per nine, not as many homers as today, but batting averages more like .280 and historically normal walk rates.  I have little desire to go back to Steve Trachsels trying to throw complete games and shortstops who OPS .575.

[InsideCoroner]

8 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

No, I would rather see baseball where there are maybe 6-7 strikeouts per nine, not as many homers as today, but batting averages more like .280 and historically normal walk rates.  I have little desire to go back to Steve Trachsels trying to throw complete games and shortstops who OPS .575.

I love going back and revisiting the numbers and seeing whose reputation has held up over time (and whose hasn’t). Torrez is a good example, since back then any 20-game winner was automatically in Cy Young award contention. But you have guys like Jerry Koosman, worth more bWAR (and an identical ERA+) going 8-20 in 1977 than someone like Catfish Hunter with a 21-5 record just four years earlier. 

I always assumed Jim Palmer was a strikeout pitcher as a kid since I only saw the latter portion of his career, and his reputation and awards preceded him, but even he only had a K/9 rate of 5.0. Such a different era. And I am glad to have seen both of them for a better overall appreciation of the game and how it changes. 

I don’t love three true outcome style of baseball, but I will also agree I have no desire to see a return to a game where the Johnnie Lemasters and Duane Kuipers of the world can get 1,000+ games under their belts. 

[Just Regular]

Some Palmer K% ranks among qualified SP's.

1966 - 24th of 60

1970 - 33rd of 79

Cy 1973 - 42nd of 84

Cy 1975 - 21st of 74

Cy 1976 - 37th of 81

2nd place Cy 1982 - 51st of 77

I've heard it said Palmer received more glove support from teammates than any pitcher ever.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

50 minutes ago, Just Regular said:

Some Palmer K% ranks among qualified SP's.

1966 - 24th of 60

1970 - 33rd of 79

Cy 1973 - 42nd of 84

Cy 1975 - 21st of 74

Cy 1976 - 37th of 81

2nd place Cy 1982 - 51st of 77

I've heard it said Palmer received more glove support from teammates than any pitcher ever.

 

I'm guessing that if you asked Palmer about the relatively high percentage of success allocated to his defense, he'd just tell you that if he didn't have Brooks, Belanger and Blair behind him he'd have just chosen to strike out more batters.

[drdelaware]

Is it ok that I am sick of all the current metrics?