The Justin Verlander Issue

In a stunning development, the results of a BBWAA awards vote have generated massive controversy in the baseball world. Who could have seen that coming? A shocker to be sure!

Despite failing to receive the most first-place votes, Rick Porcello has edged out Justin Verlander to win the American League Cy Young Award. The full results of the balloting can be found here. Porcello beat Verlander by just five points, 137 to 132. That’s as tight a race as you’re going to see. It was largely due to the fact that while Verlander got 14 of the 30 possible first-place votes, Porcello received 18 second-place votes, and Verlander was left entirely off of two ballots.

That’s right. Two voters, both of the Tampa Bay chapter of the Association, did not think that Verlander was a top-five pitcher in the AL. Verlander tied Porcello for the AL lead in WAR among qualifying pitchers, bested him in DRA, strikeout rate, and WHIP,  and threw a few more innings than him. Verlander may not have necessarily been the man who totally deserved the top slot (Zach Britton likely would have been my guy, but that’s a whole other can of worms), but he absolutely would have been on my ballot, and FanGraphs said he was basically as good as Porcello was. Porcello appeared on all 30 ballots. Verlander lost largely because he wasn’t on those two ballots. That prompted Kate Upton, his fiancée, to fire off the tweet heard ’round the world, and here we are. There was also this interesting graphic presented by Justin’s little brother Ben.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

So here we are. Shall we blame this mess on our ancient enemy Pitcher Wins, or perhaps on the Electoral College? Porcello went a gaudy 22-4 for the division-winning Red Sox. That’s a sexy stat that plays with the more traditionalist members of the BBWAA. And indeed, Porcello was given the first slot by both the Tampa Bay voters. Porcello may have ridden those 22 wins to a Cy Young title. But Fred Gooddall, one half of the Batman and Robin of snubbing Verlander, also saw fit to give J.A. Happ’s 20 wins his third-place vote. Aaron Sanchez, he of the AL ERA title, was given the fifth spot. Britton took the fourth-place spot on Goodall’s ballot. Bill Chastain, the other Tampa voter, included Masahiro Tanaka on his ballot in the fifth-place spot, in addition to including the usual suspects.

The Blue Jays starters were given nods over Verlander, seemingly, because of their superiority in Wins and ERA. Yet Verlander was so blatantly better than either Happ or Sanchez on an overall scale. The younger Verlander’s well-organized chart shows this, as does any extended viewing of their work from the past year. This is not to take away from what Happ and Sanchez did for Toronto. Both were valuable members of a playoff team.

This is also not to take away from Porcello, who had a fine year in his own right. He did post 5.2 WAR, led the AL in strikeout-to-walk ratio, recorded a lower FIP than Verlander, and managed not to get utterly trounced while playing half his games at Fenway Park, and pitching in a division that also contains Camden Yards, Yankee Stadium and Rogers Centre. That’s worthy of recognition.

And indeed, if Verlander was given, say Goodall’s third-place vote instead of Happ, and Chastain’s fifth-place vote instead of Tanaka, he still would have only had 136 points, and still would have lost to Porcello by a single point. We’re not here to find a way for Verlander to win. We can’t go through the ballot and ponder what would have happened if voters in Florida had done things differently, if a few different ballots had been submitted differently. Verlander did get the most first-place mentions. He won the popular vote, so to speak.

Ken Rosenthal provided some insight in his column on the matter. He notes that, while Chastain may have submitted his ballot before the season was over and Goodall covers more than baseball for the Associated Press (his last submission on the Rays prior to the season’s end came in August), the Tampa Bay chapter can’t necessarily afford to be stingy with who it admits. Tampa is an American League city, and they get to vote on this award.

What’s the solution here? For as silly as their omission Verlander may seem, Chastain and Goodall get to vote for who they want. That’s how all this works. It’s their right as members of the BBWAA. The writers themselves, however, could certainly exercise better methodology in their decision-making. And perhaps had different writers been selected in different chapters to vote, the results would could have looked different. Who knows? Merely 30 ballots isn’t a massive sample.

As the older arm of the Association ages out and newer members are admitted, it’s more than likely that the awards voting will begin to reflect a more accurate knowledge of advanced statistics and deeper understanding of player performance. Until that time comes, though, this is just one of those occasions on which we’ll have to shake our heads and move on. Porcello had a damn good year. Verlander was almost certainly better — and, if not better, at least worthy of a place on every ballot. The choice may not be as controversial in our neck of the woods if Porcello hadn’t had such a prodigious level of run support and had finished with, say, 17 wins instead of 22.

But then again, he may not have won if that were the case. Such is life. Arbitrary awards aren’t the end of the world anyways.

The end of the world is when Mike Trout doesn’t win MVP tonight. Enjoy your day!





Nick is a columnist at FanGraphs, and has written previously for Baseball Prospectus and Beyond the Box Score. Yes, he hates your favorite team, just like Joe Buck. You can follow him on Twitter at @StelliniTweets, and can contact him at stellinin1 at gmail.

72 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
KwisatzHaderachMember since 2016
9 years ago

As long as the same voters don’t someday use Verlander having just one Cy Young as a reason to elevate someone else over him for the HOF, this doesn’t matter. And at least we got the tweet heard round the world out of it. Congrats to Ricky.

brad.vargas
9 years ago

He lost by 5 pts yesterday and 4 pts in 2012. The two closest Cy Young finishes since voters were allowed to vote for more than 1 pitcher

KwisatzHaderachMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  brad.vargas

(Giant sigh) Yep.

olethrosMember since 2020
9 years ago

You should have seen this coming, Usul.

KwisatzHaderachMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  olethros

There was an ion cloud around Tampa.

PC1970Member since 2024
9 years ago

No doubt. I still think Alan Trammell didn’t make the HOF partly due to the snub in favor of George Bell in 1987.

Fireball Fred
9 years ago

Nonsense. People are currently gravitating back towards ERA, away from FIP – which has real value, but is not appropriate for evaluating what actually happened last season.

v2miccaMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  Fireball Fred

Even the fangraphs writers have stated that once they have enough batted ball data to create something better, they will likely move away from FIP as well. But, until then, it is more predictive of future performance than ERA.
However, I can see the argument that awards are given based on superior results, not superior process. In those cases I can grudgingly admit that perhaps ERA should be given a little weight.

paperlions
9 years ago
Reply to  Fireball Fred

ERA does not belong to a pitcher, but to the pitcher AND his defense (and, of course, to the official scorers).

Pitcher’s don’t allow or prevent runs all by themselves, we know this and should stop acting like team stats are individual stats.

KwisatzHaderachMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  paperlions

This is true, though I’d contend that a batted ball analysis should also be included. And of course, in this case, the Tigers’ miserable D compares very poorly to Boston’s.

ziggythebeagle
9 years ago
Reply to  paperlions

I would agree that ERA does include some degree of defensive performance, so doesn’t belong entirely to the pitcher.

At the same time FIP does not eliminate only the defenses impact, so does not measure all the contributions, both positive and negative, of the pitcher only. It only measures the 3 true outcomes and HBP. There is no denying that some of the non-3 True Outcome results, be they hits or outs, are not at all influnced by the defense, or very marginally influenced by the defense. In other words many outs would be made by all or nearly all defensive players, including replacement level players, and many hits would be hits regardless of the defender.

FIP is poorly named, because it does not in any way measure the contribution of the defense to any play, and since the contribution of the defense is not measured and eliminated from the measurement you cannot determine what is or is not independent of fielding.

FIP should be renamed Three True Outcome Pitching (TTOP). If that happened it would be given the appropriate weight it deserves.

ziggythebeagle
9 years ago
Reply to  ziggythebeagle

I would hasten to add that one of the points made about ERA is that it is influenced by the team, ie the defense, so it is in some measure a team stat, and does not purely measure the pitcher.

I will make an argument that FIP suffers from a similar flaw. Using Baseball Reference FIP, the coefficient of correlation for HR is 13, BB+HBP is 3, and K’s is 2. These values are effectively the slope of the best fit line, and as such the typical or average impact on ERA for each occurrence of each of these variables.

What this means is that the positive or negative effect of one of the 3 true outcomes is identical for all pitchers. This means that all home runs effect all pitchers ERA in exactly the same way, even though we all know that not to be the case. The ERA of pitchers that allow more base-runners will be hurt the more home runs they allow, and the pitchers who allow fewer base-runners will be hurt less. The effect of every home run Justin Verlander allowed has a lesser effect on ERA, than those allowed by Mike Pelfrey.

So ERA assumes/assigns all the positive/negative value of defensive run prevention to the pitcher, and as such overstates or understates the pitchers relative contribution.

FIP on the other hand assumes/assigns an identical positive/negative impact to all pitchers for the 3 true outcomes, and essentially overstates or understates ERA for each pitcher when their true contribution deviates from the average coefficient of correlation on ERA for each of the 3 true outcomes.

Finally FIP doesn’t eliminate only “Luck”, and it is a misnomer to say or infer that it does. FIP just eliminates all non-3 true outcome events. Some of these non-measured outcomes may have some degree of luck involved, but they in reality are just items that are nearly impossible to quantify and ascribe to an individual defensive player (pitcher or player). Just because it cannot be readily quantified does not mean it is good luck or bad luck.

Beel418Member since 2025
9 years ago
Reply to  Fireball Fred

That’s fine if ERA didn’t have loads of factors outside the pitchers’ control influencing it. It also doesn’t do a great job of evaluating what actually happened last season, at least on an individual level. ERA is a team stat, not an individual one.

Brock244
9 years ago

While, I agree you can make an argument for Verlander, I really don’t see how he got “robbed”. Porcello beats him in park adjusted ERA, FIP, regular FIP, and k/bb ratio. Both had the same fWAR.

Only way this looks like a Verlander robbery was if you use bWAR and strikeouts as the only stats.

IMO they are close enough, that it wasn’t unreasonable to give Porcello the nod because of the wins. I don’t understand the idea that Verlander was so much better and Porcello only won because of wins.

Ghostofmeek
9 years ago
Reply to  Brock244

I agree with Porcello being a reasonable choice, but I think the point of the article is that voters are not being internally consistent. I’m not sure how you justify leaving Verlander out of your top 5.

stlc8tr
9 years ago
Reply to  Ghostofmeek

But he needed 6 points to beat Porcello so even if both those writers had voted him 5th (or even 4th), he wouldn’t have enough points.

MikeSMember since 2020
9 years ago
Reply to  Brock244

There were a whole bunch of guys who were pretty equal this year. Since I am a White Sox homer, I will point out that Chris Sale was just as good as either of them by fWAR, FIP, xFIP or almost any peripheral measure except HR/FB and got left off 10 ballots with zero first place votes.

I think, in some weird way, Porcello gets bonus points with voters because it was by far and away his best season ever and Verlander and Sale lose some points because it was not their best seasons. It’s sort of the same with Mike Trout. I think the voters feel like he is going to win a bunch of MVP’s so they can give it to someone else each year and reward him later and that 8 WAR is just Mike Trout’s floor so his brilliance doesn’t feel as “special” or something.

Brock244
9 years ago
Reply to  MikeS

Thats a sound point. Porcello probably received points for being the breakout star. Sale and Verlander may have lost votes as they have had better seasons

Sellys
9 years ago
Reply to  Brock244

I kind of agree with you. Porcello and Verlander both pitched well, so seeing one of them win (and the other lose) a close race doesn’t strike me as crazy.

But people trusted to vote voting before the season is over is pretty janky.

BigChief
9 years ago
Reply to  Brock244

Absolutely, there are a lot of reasons for a writer to vote Porcello over Verlander. So the outcome isn’t shocking. I think what this article is addressing, and what most people are upset about, is that 2 of the 30 writers didn’t have Verlander in the top 5. So I think when people say he got ‘robbed’ they aren’t saying that it was clear he should’ve won, rather, he did receive higher votes from more knowledgeable sports writers, which would imply that he ultimately lost because of the ignorance of two.

brad.vargas
9 years ago

I personally thought Porcello should have won, but can not understand how 2 could not think JV isn’t even in top 5. Chastain said he turned in his ballot a week early missing 2 Verlander starts where he pitched 14.2 IP gave up 1 Run, 10 hits and 20 K’s.

ballsteidheMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  brad.vargas

Well, then we might need a conclusive explanation as to WHY he turned in his ballot a week early. If you are privileged to vote on an award that is to consider the players’ performance throught the whole regular season, you have to consider the whole regular season.
Especially in such a tight playoff race like the one the Tigers were in, where anything could happen. Like for example a pitcher pitching two undeniably great games, one of them against the future AL champs, where he absolutely dominates his opponents.
But…even without those 2 starts, I have a hard time figuring out why you would keep JV out of your top5…

A. Green
9 years ago
Reply to  brad.vargas

Honestly, shouldn’t there be a rule disallowing any results for a voter who turns his selections in before the end of the season?

Max Power
9 years ago

Would’ve loved to see Kate Upton include sabermetric analysis in her angry tweets.

jdbolickMember since 2024
9 years ago
Reply to  Max Power

The world is not ready to behold such magnificence.

BigChief
9 years ago
Reply to  Max Power

Stop. My penis can only get so erect.

Anonymous
9 years ago
Reply to  Max Power

That’d be incredibly surprising. She’s not awesome at the whole ‘numbers’ thing: https://twitter.com/KateUpton/status/799038668589715456

(“Sorry Rick but you didn’t get any 1st place votes”)

(He got 8.)

NATS FanMember since 2018
9 years ago

I do not think Verlander was robbed! It should have been a very close vote with Porcello. Strikouts are fascist anyway! K/BB is a far better metric for success!

KwisatzHaderachMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  NATS Fan

Why not K-BB%? Although I think your semi-argument is rubbish.

Petey BienelMember since 2019
9 years ago
Reply to  NATS Fan

In DC, there’s bumper stickers, “Don’t blame me, I voted 4 Tanner Roark!”

fjtorres
9 years ago

The issue isn’t so much that Verlander didn’t win as it is how he lost and who he lost to. If he’d lost to Sale or even Kluber there would be cause for some griping but not this storm. Verlander not only had the most dominant outings (and Porcello the fewest) he had the lowest run support and the worst defensive support of the contenders. And then, adding insult to injury two voters didn’t even think he was a worthy contender.
You don’t need to be a Tigers fan to see that is just plain wrong.

Max Power
9 years ago
Reply to  fjtorres

I’m biased as an Indians fan and salty that if Kluber didn’t get held out of his last start after the Indians locked up the division, he likely would’ve led in WAR and RA9-WAR, but Verlander/Kluber/Sale were almost identical in peripherals and contact management so were all deserving. Sale also got burned by terrible catchers and defense. Just not Porcello. Tony Blengino wrote an article about their contact-management and Porcello wasn’t even close to the other 3.

KwisatzHaderachMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  Max Power

Kluber was a better choice than Porcello IMO.

thestatbook
9 years ago

“We can’t go through the ballot and ponder what would have happened if voters in Florida had done things differently, if a few different ballots had been submitted differently.”

Isn’t this an Al Gore quote?

jsolid
9 years ago
Reply to  thestatbook

i wanted to upvote this 50 times. …Florida!

A. Green
9 years ago

I think the real winner this awards season is Yoenis Cespedes. He was traded for both the Cy Young award winner and the ROY. He must be an incredibly valuable player!

dshval
9 years ago

Isn’t the problem with voter list logic (or lack thereof)? Four voters had Happ higher than Verlander (or omitted Verlander). Verlander significantly beats Happ in almost all stat categories except Wins. Maybe there is an argument for Happ over Verlander – I’d like to hear it. BUT any argument falls apart when you see that each of those four voters voted Kluber HIGHER than Happ. Kluber also significantly beats Happ in almost all stat categories except Wins. But in most of those categories, Verlander was even better than Kluber. Its very hard to see any justification for Happ over Verlander given that these voters had Kluber over Happ.

fjtorres
9 years ago
Reply to  dshval

Yes on all counts.
But…
One could see somebody voting Kluber over Verlander out of recency bias: Kluber had a few stinkers early in the season but he came on like gangbusters in August/September.

It’s just hard to see how any serious observer could vote Verlander anything less than third.

rustydudeMember since 2021
9 years ago

Was a good year for starters from the 2012-2014 Detroit Tigers rotation.

Paul G.Member since 2016
9 years ago

So here we are. Shall we blame this mess on our ancient enemy Pitcher Wins, or perhaps on the Electoral College?

There is something to be said for Pitcher Wins. The point of the pitcher is to win games. The statistic measures winning games, generally. Obviously the statistic does have flaws at measuring pitching value (see Davis, Storm) and it was much more useful when starters completed a higher percentage of their games, but it is not nothing.

As to abolishing the baseball “Electoral College” keep in mind that proportional voting would mean lots and lots of New York sportswriters. What could possibly go wrong?

Jimmeh
9 years ago
Reply to  Paul G.

“There is something to be said for Pitcher Wins. The point of the pitcher is to win games.”

No. Absolutely wrong.

The point of the pitcher is to give THE TEAM a chance to win games, particularly in a league with a DH. There is almost no value in Pitcher Wins.

Paul G.Member since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  Jimmeh

I give you two pitchers. One is 22-4. The other is 4-22. I tell you nothing else. Which is the better pitcher? (And don’t tell me “I don’t know.” You may not be 100% sure, but you sure are 98% sure.) Pitcher Wins are a useful, if fuzzy and at times misleading statistic.

Anonymous
9 years ago
Reply to  Paul G.

When a 4-22 guy is on the Cy Young ballot, we can use Wins as a criteria for voting.

Westside guy
9 years ago
Reply to  Paul G.

I give you two pitchers. One is 21-7. The other is 13-12. Which is the better pitcher?

The Puck
9 years ago
Reply to  Westside guy

Even worse, in the same year, I give you two pitchers: One is 18-8, the other 13-12.

BTW, Justin V (not the 18-8 guy mentioned above) got pretty disrespected in 2010 too. Certainly deserved much higher than 11th. He led the AL in pitcher WAR in 2010.

The Puck
9 years ago
Reply to  Westside guy

posted twice. site has been weird for me today

Paul G.Member since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  Westside guy

Probably the guy who is 21-7.

Jimmeh
9 years ago
Reply to  Paul G.

Actually,the only thing I would be 98% sure of is that the 4-22 Pitcher is on a historically awful team. You don’t get that many starts with that kind of outcome unless your team is absolutely horrific.

Also, westside guy (below) nailed it.

Doug LampertMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  Jimmeh

In 1974 three pitchers managed to lose 22 games. NO ONE has managed it since then. I don’t know how good you’d need to be to get 26 decisions while only picking up four wins in the current environment.

The ten losingest pitchers in MLB history:
Cy Young (316)
Pud Galvin (310)
Nolan Ryan (292)
Walter Johnson (279)
Phil Niekro (274)
Gaylord Perry (265)
Don Sutton (256)
Jack Powell (254)
Eppa Rixey (251)
Bert Blyleven (250)

I’m pretty sure Jack Powell is the only one not in the HOF.

PC1970Member since 2024
9 years ago
Reply to  Paul G.

Without even looking it up, I can think of 3 games that probably cost JV the Cy Young-

-Mother’s Day- Allowed 0 runs in 7 innings vs Texas, left with a 2-0 lead. The firm of Greene & Lowe came in & allowed 7 runs in the 8th to blow the game. (I was at the game, so it sticks out.)

-9/16 vs Cleveland- Allows 0 runs & 1 hit in 8 innings. Carlos Carrasco was hit by a Kinsler line drive & knocked out of the game on the 1st batter. Tigers scored 0 runs vs Cleveland bullpen & Detroit ended up losing 1-0 in 10 innings.

– 10/2 vs Atlanta- Allowed 1 run in 7 innings vs Atlanta, Tigers offense implodes, they lose 1-0 & miss the WC.

That’s 3 games, 1 run allowed in 22 innings..& he goes 0-1. Give him the 3 wins he deserved & he’s 19-8, not 16-9. I imagine JV had other no decisions that I don’t remember off hand. Wonder how many games Porcello & Happ had where they allowed 0 or 1 run & didn’t win?

rosen380
9 years ago
Reply to  PC1970

I didn’t check, but you’d have to go further:
(1) Do the same for the other pitchers [crediting them for wins where they didn’t get one — ie maybe Porcello “deserved” to be 2-0 in two games where he combined for 15 innings and 2 ER, and not be 0-1.

(2) swap wins or no decisions perhaps when the player “deserved” a loss or no decision. Not sure I’d say Verlander should have had a loss for 7IP and 4ER, but maybe a ND is more typical?

Once you are doing all of these adjustments, I’d just vote to call actual credited wins and losses crap and go with something else.

brad.vargas
9 years ago
Reply to  rosen380

Verlander won 4 games when he gave up 3 ER or more while Porcello won 8 such games. JV started 22 games where he allowed 2 ER runs or fewer (65% of starts) and Porcello had 16 such starts (49% of starts). Porcello Wins boosted by his crazy run support.

Arjon
9 years ago

It’s also interesting that Britton received 5 first-place votes but was omitted from six ballots.

John Autin
9 years ago

Although I wanted Verlander to win, I don’t go for the “how could you leave him OFF your ballot?” analysis. You can’t view those ballots in a vacuum. If you’re going to scrutinize those two voters, you have to scrutinize everyone, including those who had Verlander well ahead of Porcello.

Verlander may have led the AL in RA/9, WHIP, WPA, strikeouts and bWAR, but the margins were small enough, and the other contenders strong enough, that you can at least build a case that he “deserved” a ranking of 4th, 5th or even 6th.

HappyFunBallMember since 2019
9 years ago

“As the older arm of the Association ages out and newer members are admitted, it’s more than likely that the awards voting will begin to reflect a more accurate knowledge of advanced statistics and deeper understanding of player performance”

This would be the BBWAA corollary of the axiom about societal change in general finally being permanent once all the olds still holding yesterday’s prejudices finally start to die out.

asreitzMember since 2016
9 years ago

Lets be real…The voters voted for guys they regularly saw play in the AL East. Porcello/Tanaka/Britton/Happ/Sanchez. That’s just ridiculous. If you’re allowed to vote, you should watch more than Tampa Ray games, and at the very least. Get on a computer and compare some stats. Ha, I still can’t believe Porcello will forever be a Cy Young winner. He had a nice season, Verlander/Sale/Britton and Sanchez were more deserving, imo.

JEdwardMember since 2016
9 years ago

“The end of the world is when Mike Trout doesn’t win MVP tonight.”

*single tear rolls down cheek*

olethrosMember since 2020
9 years ago

Can we just fast-forward to the part where Florida is underwater and no longer able to fuck up elections please?

maumanntsMember since 2022
9 years ago

Maybe they get lousy seats in the press box at Comerica. Maybe the visiting teams’ hotel has bed bugs. Maybe they can’t get laid. Whatevder the reason, the BBWAA has pretty much given the middle finger to Detroit since Al Kaline made the Hall of Fame almost four decades ago. Norm Cash, Bill Freehan, Dick McAuliffe, Lou Whitaker, Alan Trammell, Jack Morris … all in the Hall of Very Good. However, I wonder how they’d have fared had they worn a “B” or “NY” on their caps instead of the Old English “D.” The Tigers are woefully under-represented in Cooperstown, and I expect Verlander will probably only get in if he buys a ticket.

Roomanitarian
9 years ago
Reply to  maumannts

This is the whole problem the Hall of Fame. SI says this is no big deal, then in the next article says, Scherzer borderline lock for Hall because of 2 CYs.

Detroit is boned repeatedly by the Hall, and Trammell would be in had won the ’87 MVP, so that is why this matters.

rosen380
9 years ago
Reply to  maumannts

“Norm Cash, Bill Freehan, Dick McAuliffe, Lou Whitaker, Alan Trammell, Jack Morris ”

Jack Morris, by JAWS, ranks well behind Orel Hershiser and Ron Guidry… and they didn’t get into the HoF. Andy Pettitte is a bit ahead and I’m not so sure he is guaranteed a HoF plaque.

Trammell’s nearest primary Yankees/Dodgers neighbor is Jeter, so an obvious travesty…

Aside from Jackie Robinson who’s a special case, Whitaker is a bit ahead of Willie Randolph [56 to 51], though Joe Gordon is roughly at the same place as Randolph, so I guess that one is hard to figure.

Dick McAuliffe is way down the list where any HoFers are extremely suspect choices.

Freehan is behind Munson who died tragically and still didn’t get in and lost the tail of his career to accumulate some counting stats. Posada is a little behind Freehan by JAWS; I guess we’ll see this summer.

Psychic... Powerless...
9 years ago

Am I the only one who finds Kate Upton’s behavior reprehensible? She told MLB to fire writers (as if that’s possible) and told Porcello, “Sorry… you didn’t win.”

Chip LockeMember since 2016
9 years ago

If that was reprehensible behavior, Twitter should be shut down completely.

John Autin
9 years ago
Reply to  Chip Locke

Case closed! Thanks for making it so clear. 🙂

Anonymous
9 years ago
Reply to  Chip Locke

I’m upvoting this not because it wasn’t bad behavior, but because I agree Twitter should be shut down completely.

carterMember since 2020
9 years ago

There is a lot of reprehensible behavior I would like to do to her.

jsolid
9 years ago

yes

Joey Butts
9 years ago

I think one really interesting pair of players on this ballot is Porcello and Tanaka. There’s very little difference between them. K/9, BB/9, HR/9, BABIP, LOB%, all nearly identical. Here’s what I think are the main differences between them.

IP: Porcello had a bunch more. 23, but if Tanaka hadn’t been held out of his last start because the Yankees were going nowhere, probably just 16 (plus the question of if he would have pitched deeper without the Yankees’ great back-end of the bullpen). Ballpark: YS3 is much more difficult for right-handers than Fenway. That’s why Tanaka’s HR/FB is higher and why he induced so many more GB.

That doesn’t really give either one an advantage. Yet while Tanaka was barely mentioned on 16% of ballots, Porcello won. The easy answer is to blame it on wins, but I honestly don’t think that can explain such a large difference.

brad.vargas
9 years ago

Nicolas,

Re: “Zach Britton likely would have been my guy”. What Britton did this season was amazing, but 67 IP is not comparable to 200+ especially when hitters only get one chance at him and he only needs to get 3 outs with nobody on in most appearances. Michael Fulmer had a 61 1/3 IP stretch where he had a 0.73 ERA and .080 WHIP. Fulmer didn’t have the luxury to Max out his arm just to finish an inning like Britton did because he had already pitched a few innings and was expected to come back the next inning and get them out.

I am much more impressed with Britton’s 69 appearances and only allowing a run in only 4 of those than I am with the MLB “save”. In only 15 of Britton’s Saves did he need to get 3 outs (nobody on) without giving up one run.

KCDaveInLA
9 years ago

“God dammit.” muttered Verlander, as his 90″ UHD tv broadcast the results. No Cy Young Award for Justin, leaving him to sulk in the master bedroom of his 8000 square-foot mansion while his supermodel girlfriend does a strip tease.

Seriously though, his little brother makes a good argument.

ginsugarland@gmail.com
9 years ago

All is good with me if Verlander reaches out publicly to Porcello and congratulates him. IMO, while Verlander should have won, all the poop stirred up by his family has taken away what Porcello accomplished.

The Puck
9 years ago

It’s hard to watch as Verlander keeps being passed over. He has one CY, but he should have AT LEAST two, maybe even three or four.

-In 2010, he finished 11th in voting, but finished 1st in WAR for AL pitcher.

-He won in 2011.
-In 2012 he absolutely should have won over Price.

-This year was arguable. There were 4, 5 deserving guys, but Verlander should have been the guy.

That’s three, maybe four wins that could be argued. Two are slam dunks. He has one Cy Young, but he also has Kate Upton, so he wins.