Saying Maddux isn't a great strikeout pitcher is sort of disingenuous. You can't look at strikeout rate alone; I mean, heck, Victor Zambrano has a decent "strikeout rate". You have to look at strikeouts and walks together.
Maddux's strikeout rate, in concert with his low walk rate, was phenomenal when he was in his prime. It's actually still pretty good, even in 2004. Radke and David Wells have average to low Ks this year, but they have crazy low K/BB rates anyway, so they're effective pitchers. Sheets also has an amazingly low BB rate, but he has super-high Ks, which is why he's been so freaking great this year.
It's just wrong to say that Maddux was great "despite" not being a great strikeout pitcher. He was a great strikeout/walk pitcher.
[quote="Jester"] Also, has anyone else noticed the only pitchers being considered for this years Cy Young are all K pitchers??? I find it hard to believe that’s just a coincidence.quote]
Not exactly true. Mulder was considered the leading candidate for the Cy for quite a while this year (before he started struggling) and last year (before his injury.) When Zito won the Cy in 2002 he had 182 K's, which is damn good but not dominant.
Santana is a lock.
Bluto: Over? Did you say over? NOTHING is over until WE decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? HELL, NO!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
RayD wrote:Saying Maddux isn't a great strikeout pitcher is sort of disingenuous. You can't look at strikeout rate alone; I mean, heck, Victor Zambrano has a decent "strikeout rate". You have to look at strikeouts and walks together.
Maddux's strikeout rate, in concert with his low walk rate, was phenomenal when he was in his prime. It's actually still pretty good, even in 2004. Radke and David Wells have average to low Ks this year, but they have crazy low K/BB rates anyway, so they're effective pitchers. Sheets also has an amazingly low BB rate, but he has super-high Ks, which is why he's been so freaking great this year.
It's just wrong to say that Maddux was great "despite" not being a great strikeout pitcher. He was a great strikeout/walk pitcher.
Good point. Evidence that it doens't matter HOW you allow less runs, as long as you do. If you don't K a lot, you can make up for it by not walking a lot. If you walk a lot, you can make up for it by inducing groundballs and getting DP's. Those are just two examples, which are easy to understand.
And welcome to the cafe Ray, I don't think I've seen you here yet
"Jack, will you call me, if you're able?"
"I've got your phone number written, in the back of my Bible."
Hey guys. I've been following the cafe since I found it this spring, and it has offered a lot of helpful insight. After reading through this huge "who deserves AL Cy Young" thread, I had to register just so I could respond
Santana is the AL Cy Young right now, unless he gets his teeth kicked in over the next few weeks and Schilling throws a couple masterpieces. Santana leads in virtually all pitching categories other than wins. Although I can't find the stats right now, I would strongly suspect Schilling has seen a lot more runs to work with than Santana. Boston has scored almost 150 more runs than Minnesota, 853-708. So if we can assume Santana would have 2 more wins with Boston's offense, the 2 win difference is negligible.
Looking closer at their seasons', of course it jumps out that Santana started very slow due to recovery from surgury, tipping his pitches, whatever it was. Schilling was fairly consistent from April until now. But does a slow start, vs. a consistent year, matter? If 2 pitchers give you 20-ish wins in 220+ innings, I don't think it matters whether they were the tortoise or the hare. They gave you a dominating year.
For you guys who think Schilling should/could win the Cy Young....no mention of the interleague schedule? Santana had 4 starts against the Mets, Expos, and Brewers twice, while Schilling drew the Padres, Phillies, Braves, and Rockies in Colorado. Quite a difference, huh? Won't be factored into the voting, but interesting...
Schilling vs. NYY so far : 11.2 IP, 6.17 ERA, 1.89 WHIP vs. OAK 12.1 IP, 3.65 ERA, 1.62 WHIP and .351 BAA
Those numbers don't help his case. If anything, some of his struggles have come at bad times against Boston's biggest rivals. Of course, you could say Santana has had fewer "big" games because Minnestoa is a playoff lock...but still...a Cy Young should be at his best when it counts the most, no?
Voters always have a soft spot for the wins, no matter what the other numbers are. Schilling will have more wins, but it won't matter...Santana can still win 20 too, and along with all his statistical advantages is the easy pick. The only times a starting pitcher who is dominating the pitching categories like Santana doesn't win the Cy Young is when his team is a non-contender and he is deemed "less valuable" because of it. Since the Twins are going to the playoffs....thats obviously not the case here.
Great year for both, but the Cy Young is Santana's to lose.
Here's a question (now that my rant is over ) :
Since Santana isn't a playoff-tested veteran like Schilling....who'd you rather have starting a decisive game 7?
BurlyMan wrote: Since Santana isn't a playoff-tested veteran like Schilling....who'd you rather have starting a decisive game 7?
easy answer to this one...schilling by a nose over smoltz and rj....(yes i would put smoltz back starting if i were bobby cox and they made it to the world series game 7)
and welcome to the cafe, hope you enjoy your time here....
Santana's last game made this argument largely moot, but Schilling had a gem tonight. Best stat? Not his 14 Ks... He threw 114 pitches, 90 of them for strikes. That is unreal. Unreal.
That's pretty damn good.... understandable since he doesn't rely on a breaking ball in the dirt to get people out, he gets them out with his changeup, but still - that's RJ-esque right there. He'll still give up his HR's since he relies on a changeup which if anticipated can be rocked (Foulke can tell ya all about that), but he won't allow too many baserunners at all.
I havn't seen him pitch too many times, but is his changeup also similar to a splitter, like Gagne's "changeup"? Because if right now all he has is a changeup without as much downward motion as a splitter, imagine how good he'd be if he learned the splitter to replace his change I'm probably getting greedy, but his ERA would probably be 1 if he managed to do that
"Jack, will you call me, if you're able?"
"I've got your phone number written, in the back of my Bible."
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by RayD » Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:01 am 
) :
I'm probably getting greedy, but his ERA would probably be 1 if he managed to do that 
