Should an NL pitcher’s hitting affect his Cy Young standing?
賽揚獎應該考慮國聯投手的打擊表現嗎？
Should an NL pitcher’s hitting affect his Cy Young standing?
Posted by Pat Andriola
According to most of the established advanced pitching statistics, Matt Harvey
is having a better year on the mound than Clayton Kershaw is. Harvey's 2.00 FIP
and 2.60 xFIP trump Kershaw's 2.40 FIP and 2.94 xFIP by a pretty solid margin.
根據現有的進階投手數據資料，Matt Harvey 今年在投手丘上的表現比 Clayton Kershaw
更好。Matt Harvey 他 2.00 的 FIP跟 2.60 的 xFIP 都比書僮的 2.40 FIP 以及 2.94
xFIP要好出一段距離。
But although Kershaw is likely to win the Cy Young (and quite possibly the MVP
as well), it isn't the infamous win-loss record that's putting him over the
top; his 13-7 record is solid, but traditionally pedestrian and arguably
competitive with Harvey's 9-4 record for a much worse team. Kershaw will win
the Cy Young because his ERA is a majestic 1.72, despite the fact that the
difference between his ERA and FIP/xFIP is easily explainable by a ridiculous
.231 BABIP and career-high left-on-base rate of 80 percent. Oh well, que sera,
sera; we've seen this many times before.
書僮很有可能奪下今年的賽揚獎 (還有可能順便拿下MVP)，但這不是由於賽揚獎對勝負紀
錄惡名昭彰的重視，他的 13 勝 7敗很好，但是在一直明顯較弱的球隊投出 9勝 4敗的
Harvey也不至於落後太多。書僮真正的優勢在於他不可思義的 1.72 自責分率，儘管從他的
FIP/xFIP還有 .231 的 BABIP以及生涯新高的 80%殘壘率都告訴我們這不真正反應實力。相
關的討論在之前已經有過許多了。
But is there a sabermetric argument in favor of Kershaw topping Harvey? One
could argue that although Harvey's 5.9 fWAR (which is based off FIP) beats
Kershaw's 5.5, when you take batting WAR into account, Kershaw comes out ahead.
Harvey is hitting just .088/.088/.123 this year, good for an awful wRC+ of -53
and -0.3 WAR, dropping his overall fWAR total to 5.6. Meanwhile, Kershaw has
been one of the best hitting pitchers in baseball with a .156/.217/.250 slash
line in 76 plate appearances, good for 0.4 WAR, bringing his overall fWAR to
5.9.
那麼，有任何棒球統計學上的理由支持 Kershaw 比 Harvey更適合拿賽揚獎嗎？可能會有
人宣稱雖然 Harvey 5.9 的 fWAR ( 此數據主要由 FIP 支持)勝過 Kershaw的 5.5，但是
如果你把兩個人的打擊成績考慮進來的話，那麼其實 Kershaw是勝過 Harvey 的。Harvey
今年的打擊成績只有 .088/.088/.123 ，導致了慘烈的 053 wRC+ 以及 -0.3 WAR ，使得
他總合的fWAR下降到了 5.6。相對之下，Kershaw 今年在 76 個打席中打出了 .156/.217
/.250 ，大聯盟最佳的投手打擊表現之一，貢獻了 0.4 WAR並且讓他的 fWAR 來到 5.9。
So the real question is: Should any of this matter?
所以現在問題是，投手的打擊表現需要一起考慮嗎？
First awarded in 1956 and invented by then-commissioner Ford Frick, the Cy
Young award purports to go to the "best pitcher." It's not a stretch to
distinguish between the "best pitcher" and the "player who pitches best" to
make the case that being a pitcher in the National League entails not just
pitching, but hitting.
1956年由後來成為大聯盟主席的 Ford Frick 創立並首次頒獎，賽揚獎意圖獎勵 "最佳投
手"。但是在國聯，由於投手也要打擊，使得 "最佳投手" 和 "投球表現最好的球員" 兩個
詞出現了不同的意思。
Although we often think of pitchers hitting as some sort of cute sideshow to
"real baseball" that doesn't have much impact, the fWAR numbers aren't any less
real than those for Mike Trout or Miguel Cabrera. The only question is whether
the Cy Young award should consider a pitcher's season at the plate (and,
related, in the field and on the base paths, although those WAR numbers are
usually low enough to leave them as a non-issue).
儘管我們常常把投手的打擊當成某種 "真正的棒球比賽" 之間不重要的穿插表演，計算出
的fWAR還是有一樣的真實性，就像去年轟轟烈烈的 Mike Trout vs Miguel Cabrera 事件
一樣。所以真正的問題還是，賽揚獎到底該不該考慮投手的打擊表現，乃至更進一步，投
手的守備還有跑壘等等。
My gut answer would be "no," that for the purposes of the award the intent is
"who pitched the best," despite the "best pitcher" language. But in terms of
figuring out who had a more valuable season overall? Kershaw's bat may prove
determinative.
我的直覺反應是不，這個獎是為 "投球表現最好的球員" 而非 "最好的投手" 所設立的。
但是如果問題是誰的球季總體表現更好，那麼 Kershaw才是正確答案。
http://tinyurl.com/kjjuh8n