Cy Young Popularity Contest
By David Damiani
Whenever I’m in Virginia Beach, I usually encounter a speedy local tour boat named “The Rocket.” And whenever that boat zooms past, I feel thankful that no baseball writers are in the area lest the boat accidentally receive a Cy Young Award.
I say this because Roger Clemens, the Houston Astros pitcher who shares his nickname with the boat’s moniker, won his seventh Cy Young this past week. And while Clemens has put up a Hall of Fame-worthy career remarkable for its durability and efficiency, his win encapsulates everything that’s wrong with the postseason awards thought process.
The first problem is that the awards all too often turn into a popularity contest. The Gold Glove awards are among the most hideous, as they tend to value a penchant for the spectacular play over intelligent positioning that makes every play look routine--hence, a Torii Hunter beats out a Mark Kotsay, and a Derek (nicknamed “Past a Diving” in some Internet boards) Jeter gets a reputation as a good defensive shortstop.
But through Clemens, the popularity contest motif has attached itself to another award as well. There’s plenty of objective basis to declare Clemens one of the greatest pitchers of his era, but you’ll find no objectivity in how the media evaluates him. Although he had something of a prima donna reputation during his tenure in Boston, in later years (especially upon arriving in New York), Clemens has inexplicably gained unassailable media status. He is beyond critique in most outlets despite his often bizarre behavior, and at minimum there must be four Sports Illustrated articles per year (all by Tom Verducci) centered on the same epic thesis statement: “He’s the Rocket!” (A nickname delivered in broadcasts with the level of fervor rarely encountered outside of trying to discuss Halliburton with an the denizens of Austin, Texas.)
This season Clemens finished 18-4 with a 2.98 ERA and 219 strikeouts, a superb performance--but not as good as NL Cy Young second place finisher Randy Johnson’s. Johnson posted 290 strikeouts, pitched 31 more innings, notched a sparkling 2.60 ERA, and gave up significantly fewer walks and hits per innings pitched (WHIP). Also outperforming Clemens was Ben Sheets, who finished a distant ninth on the ballot, with a 2.70 ERA in 22 more innings and a sterling 32/264 walk-to-strikeout ratio.
This is not an anomaly, as Clemens won under similar circumstances in 2001. Clemens’ 20-3, 3.51 ERA performance was again quite good, but his runner-up, Mark Mulder, topped him in wins, innings pitched, ERA, and WHIP. Second runner-up Freddy Garcia and more distant competitors Mike Mussina and Tim Hudson also bested Clemens (and Mulder) in all categories but wins. Nonetheless, in 2001 as in 2004, media buzz revolved around Clemens as the presumptive Cy winner.
Ironically, a Clemens Cy Young loss in his pre-New York adulation days illustrates the other flaw in award voting methodology: an excessive focus on wins. As explored in this space before, a pitcher’s wins are often a function of offensive and bullpen support; ERA, WHIP, and other peripherals are much better measures of performance. But witness Clemens’ 1990 loss to Bob Welch for the AL Cy Young. Clemens posted a remarkable 1.93 ERA and 1.08 WHIP in one of the best seasons in recent memory, but all voters saw were Welch’s 27 wins, despite an ERA more than a full point higher than Clemens’. Even sixth and seventh place finishers Dave Stieb and Chuck Finley significantly outperformed Welch in all major categories but wins. And in 2004, Johnson and Sheets played for poor offensive teams and lagged behind in wins (16 and 12, respectively).
In similar injustices, the 2002 Cy Young went to Barry Zito for his 23 wins despite runner-up Pedro Martinez’s breathtaking 0.92 WHIP and 2.26 ERA; and in 1999, NL wins champ Tom Glavine won the award over Kevin Brown and Greg Maddux, who outperformed him in ERA, WHIP, innings pitched, and strikeout rate. Even when the winningest pitcher doesn’t win the award, the obsession with that statistic is obvious. Aaron Sele finished fifth in the 1999 AL Cy race for his 18 wins despite a hideous 1.53 WHIP and a mediocre-at-best 4.79 ERA; Mike Mussina finished fifth in the AL vote under almost the same circumstances in 1996.
But dream on if you expect any changes in how the sports media elite evaluates pitchers. The ever-insightful team of John Kruk and Joe Morgan of ESPN have issued one inane paean to wins after another over the past couple of seasons as part of the media’s general smorgasbord of sabermetric backlashing. Early this season, when Anaheim’s so-so Jarrod Washburn bizarrely led the league in wins, Kruk stated that Washburn was the best pitcher in baseball. And Maureen Dowd’s education on middle America didn’t end when Elly May announced that The Beverly Hillbillies had been a Filmways presentation.
But he’s no match for Morgan, who last season stated that even if a pitcher had an 0.01 ERA, he couldn’t be considered elite if he didn’t have a sufficient number of wins. An 0.01 ERA translates to one earned run allowed in 900 innings. So Morgan’s correct that any pitcher with those numbers shouldn’t get a Cy Young; he should get a Purple Heart instead. And reserve at least a beige badge of courage for anyone who tries to make sense of MLB postseason awards ballots.
Sports aficionado David Damiani works as a tax accountant for Witt Mares in Newport News, Virginia.
