What Corey Kluber Winning the Cy Young Tells Us

Corey Kluber won the American League Cy Young Award on Wednesday, beating Seattle’s Felix Hernandez by 10 points, with 17 first place votes to Felix’s 13. In doing so, Kluber became the first Indians pitcher to win the award since Cliff Lee in 2008, the first Indians right-hander to win the award since Gaylord Perry in 1972, and the first player in the entire MLB with the initials C.K. to win a Cy Young since Clayton Kershaw, like, 20 minutes earlier.

This came as a bit of a surprise! Most people expected Hernandez to win. Four of five CBSSports MLB writers polled here selected Hernandez. This Washington Post article from September had Kluber third. 62% of the 18,000 individuals polled by SportsNation picked Felix. This ESPN forecast gave Hernandez a 70% chance to win. Nobody actually thought Kluber was going to win this.

And that makes sense. Kluber had an awesome year, but Felix had an awesome year, too, and he was more awesome in some of the ways that have historically been rewarded. Jeff put it pretty well in his post from yesterday in saying that there really was no right choice for this award. Kluber and Felix were damn near equal. But you know that already. You’ve read countless posts about it, and your mind is already made up for who you would have voted. I agree with the selection of Kluber, personally, but this isn’t about who should have won, or my thoughts on that matter. It’s about who did win, and what that can tell us about the voting process in 2014.

Probably the first thing people have looked at throughout time to determine their vote for the Cy Young Award is ERA. Even when wins were still cool, ERA was the trump card. Always has been. Felix’s ERA this year was 2.14. Kluber’s was 2.44, and he won the Cy Young. That, right there, seems kind of crazy. And it probably says something about the thought process of the collective voter in 2014.

Consider that, although Kluber had more wins, Felix had a better winning percentage. Consider that they threw the same number of innings. Consider that neither pitcher’s team made the playoffs. Consider that Felix has the name recognition, and a prior Cy Young victory. These, historically, have been the sort of advantages one would need to overcome a 30-point deficit in ERA. These are advantages Kluber didn’t have, yet he still overcame the ERA. Again, this tells us something.

Now let me take a trip down memory lane.

Coming out of Cleveland is Kluber, with a Cy Young Award in his hand and a 30-point deficit in ERA. Is there any precedent of guys winning despite such a large disadvantage in what voters have perceived to be the most important stat throughout time? I’m looking at just the top three finalists for each league, because that’s how it’s done now, and I’m looking for gaps in ERA of 30 points or more.

In 2008, Cliff Lee won, despite having an ERA 30 points higher than Francisco Rodriguez, but one of those guys is a reliever and the other is a starter, so that doesn’t count. You’ve got to go back to 2005 to find this sort of thing happening with two starters. That year, Bartolo Colon and his 3.48 ERA won over Johan Santana’s 2.87, and in the NL, Roger Clemens and his 1.87 ERA lost out to Chris Carpenter 2.83. The year before that, Clemens beat Randy Johnson despite a 38-point gap. In 2003, Pedro Martinez had an ERA a full run lower than winner Roy Halladay, but Halladay threw 80 more innings. So it seems like, yes, there is some precedent of guys who got blown out in ERA winning the Cy Young. But Kluber didn’t overcome his ERA deficit for the same reasons those guys did.

Hey, speaking of which, how did Kluber overcome the ERA deficit, without the help of wins, innings, name recognition or a playoff bid? Let’s see what the actual voters themselves thought.

Gerry Fraley, of The Dallas Morning News:

“Felix had the advantages of working home games in a pitcher’s park and was backed by a good defensive team. After watching Cleveland kick around the ball, I’m surprised Kluber ever got an out.”

Evan Drellich, of The Houston Chronicle:

“I think the numbers support the choice: FIP, K/9, yes, even WAR (Wins Over Replacement). I do think that Safeco Field’s pitcher’s park reputation plays a little unfairly for Hernandez, setting up a standard that can be difficult to reach.”

Dan Hayes, of CSNChicago:

“In the end, Kluber’s strong finish along with a great FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching) gave him the edge to me. Having seen Cleveland’s defense all season along with the difference in home parks, I thought Kluber had to overcome more to reach comparable numbers.”

Sam Mellinger, of The Kansas City Star:

The separator for me this year was in the finish, and that they had such similar numbers with Hernandez pitching in front of what I believe to be a better defense and in a better ballpark for pitchers

Ken Rosenthal, of FOX Sports:

“The difference in the support that Hernandez and Kluber received from their respective defenses was far more meaningful — and quite an advantage for Hernandez.”

Dennis Manoloff, of The Plain Dealer:

In choosing Kluber over Felix, I put a lot of stock in FIP. Kluber overcame a terrible defense. #indians#cyyoung@EdTheRevelator@WFNYJacob

— Dennis Manoloff (@dmansworld474) November 13, 2014

That’s how.

Let’s go back to some of those previous seasons where the guy with the ERA title didn’t win, and try to figure out why. Each season is unique, and I don’t have quotes from the voters to know specifically why they voted the way they did, but I have educated guesses.

2001: Roger Clemens (3.51) over Freddy Garcia (3.05). Reason: Wins? Clemens went 20-3, Garcia went 18-6. Name? Clemens already had five Cy Youngs.

2002: Barry Zito (2.75) over Pedro Martinez (2.26). Reason: Innings? Zito threw 30 more. Playoffs? Zito’s team made them, Pedro’s didnt.

2003: Roy Halladay (3.25) over Pedro Martinez (2.22). Reason: Innings. It was definitely innings. Halladay threw 80 more. He also went 22-7, while Pedro went 14-4.

2004: Roger Clemens (2.98) over Randy Johnson (2.60). Reason: Wins? Clemens went 18-4, Johnson was barely .500, at 16-14. Also, playoffs. Clemens was in, Johnson was out.

2005: Chris Carpenter (2.83) over Roger Clemens (1.87). Reason: Steroids? This was the year Clemens was first linked to PED usage. Wins? Carpenter went 21-5, Clemens went 13-8. Innings? Carpenter threw 30 more. There was a lot in play here.

2005: Bartolo Colon (3.48) over Johan Santana (2.87). Reason: Wins? Colon got to the magic 20, going 21-8 while Santana was 16-7. Playoffs? Colon was in, Santana wasn’t.

2014: Corey Kluber (2.44) over Felix Hernandez (2.14). Reason: FIP? Park factors? I don’t need to cite the numbers, we’ve got quotes straight from the voters themselves.

This seems big. There’s a consensus as to why Corey Kluber just won a Cy Young Award and, at the risk of sounding over dramatic, it feels like something of a revolutionary consensus. This reminds me of when Felix won the Cy Young in 2010, despite a 13-12 record. Seemed like that was a turning point that helped the national audience realize pitcher wins don’t matter. Perhaps this will be something of a turning point that ERA isn’t the end-all-be-all, and a turning point that helps legitimize FIP to the mainstream. Some voters cited DIPS theory, perhaps without knowing it, by attempting to strip the effect of Kluber’s defense out of his performance. Others simply spelled it out.

Corey Kluber just a won a Cy Young Award without an advantage in ERA, without an advantage in win/loss record, without name recognition and without his team making the playoffs. I’d be remiss to ignore the fact that many voters also cited his strong stretch run in the second half, but it sure seems like Corey Kluber just won a Cy Young Award largely due in part to his FIP. And despite the “old-school” reputation of the BBWAA, that’s a big step in the right direction.