FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Bigalke said 06/19, 11:12 AM
So Hoyt doesn't tickle your fancy, eh? Well, let's look at what he DID accomplish that season (AL rank in parentheses):

WINS - 24 (1st)
WHIP - 1.024 (1st)
BB/9IP - 1.07 (1st)
SO/BB - 4.77 (1st)

Hoyt led FOUR statistical categories... including one that brought his team ONE-QUARTER of all its victories in 1983...


Now his numbers might look bad, but the precedent was set by the previous season's AL Cy Young winner... Pete Vuckovich, pitching for the AL champion Milwaukee Brewers, put up a season that, when broken down, looks FAR WORSE than Hoyt's:

Vuckovich/1982: 30 GS, 223.7 IP, 18-6, 9 CG, 234 H, 3.34 ERA (3.80 1982 AL ERA), 1.502 WHIP
Hoyt/1983: 36 GS, 260.7 IP, 24-10, 11 CG, 236 H, 3.66 ERA (4.20 1983 AL ERA), 1.024 WHIP


In the end, Hoyt's numbers don't look nearly as bad when compared to the previous winner's. Vuckovich allowed 1.05 H/IP; Hoyt only 0.91 H/IP. Hoyt's ERA looks better by comparison because it WAS a down year for pitching in the AL (an increase of 0.40 in league ERA is indicative of such a fact)...

Hoyt may not at first glance look like a worthy CY winner, but compared to his immediate predecessor he is imminently worthy... Vuckovich is THE worst CY winner.

Bigalke said 06/20, 01:26 AM
You mention all these stats as funny and "ancillary"... yet then you continue to mention the stats of the remaining Chicago pitchers without simultaneously looking at how the rest of the league was performing that season. The fact remains that yes, many things affect ANY stat -- for instance, if EVERY pitcher on that White Sox team was under the league ERA for 1983, then would it not stand that perhaps defense had a hand in this fact? Fisk behind the plate, for example, helps EVERY pitcher...

However, think of it this way. Hoyt stayed, with his gaudy 3.66 ERA, stayed over a half-run UNDER the AL ERA average for 1983 (4.20)... but do ANY of these mean anything unless you deal in stats? How about this... YOU keep railing off about Hoyt's "pinpoint control"... which helps BUILD these stats... which illustrate his dominance of the AL through his four statistical categories led and his 17 of 28 first-place votes in Cy Young voting...

Vukovich was a no-brainer? Comparing his voting, he won by only 28 points over Jim Palmer. Despite those final starts, he was no surefire candidate. He got lucky when other teams faltered throughout the season... and was a far worse winner than Hoyt...

Bigalke said 06/20, 10:27 AM
No, CCC... the BIGGEST stat for a pitcher is not how many runs he allows per game. Rather, it is whether he can allow FEWER runs than the other team's pitcher and get the WIN...

Hoyt did far more for the 1983 White Sox than Vuckovich did for the Brewers in 1982. Having Rollie on your staff surely helped those wins come...

As for your distaste for stats, this is the truest comparison when comparing pitchers. As I said before, many things can account for a win or a run... however, a pitcher and a pitcher alone can control his WHIP or BB or SO...

Hoyt had better mastery and control on the mound. You failed to refute the fact that a lot of Vuckovich's wins came lucky that season, as other teams continued to leave those people on base. Hoyt didn't have that luxury... yet STILL amassed a full third more wins than Vuckovich...

Which is why Cy Young voters didn't have anywhere near as hard a time choosing Hoyt in 1983 as they did in coming to the Vuckovich conclusion the preceding year. Why, again? Because the results on the field didn't lie... just as the stats amassed on the field and calculated later do not lie either. Hoyt deserved the Cy Young FAR MORE than Vuckovich...