Marichal & The Cy Young

[TonyStarks]

Just seeing the recent Post on Marichal....finally lead me to ask....

Why was Marichal not a Cy Young Award winner?
And why does he receive less recognition since he was one of the most dominant forces during his time?

[Lin_Kuei_Fighter]

No kidding. Problem is, some of Marichal's best years were when someone was so dominant, they deserved the Cy Young.

He did deserve the 1969 CY if you ask me- lower WHIP, and more IP than Seaver.

Edit: It's close, but let's look at them side by side

WHIP

Seaver: 1.039
Marichal: 0.994

ERA+
Seaver: 166
Marichal: 166

K's
Seaver: 208
Marichal: 205

IP
Marichal: 299.7
Seaver 277.7

How the hell did Seaver outbeat Marichal in 1969?

[TonyStarks]

Maybe it was the infamous Johnny Roseboro incident may have 'unofficially' blacklisted him?

[Brian McKenna]

Marichal is readily mention as one of the top moundsmen of the 1960s. A better question might be - how com Jenkins' name doesn't flow as easy.

[flash143817]

No kidding. Problem is, some of Marichal's best years were when someone was so dominant, they deserved the Cy Young.

He did deserve the 1969 CY if you ask me- lower WHIP, and more IP than Seaver.

Edit: It's close, but let's look at them side by side

WHIP

Seaver: 1.039
Marichal: 0.994

ERA+
Seaver: 166
Marichal: 166

K's
Seaver: 208
Marichal: 205

IP
Marichal: 299.7
Seaver 277.7

How the hell did Seaver outbeat Marichal in 1969?

ERA and strikeouts are very similar. Others are small edge to Marichal. Without looking it up, it was probably wins that got Seaver the CYA, fair or not. I can definitely see Marichal having a case, but the numbers are close enough that Seaver isn't a terrible choice over him. The funny part is though that Marichal didn't even get a single vote that year.

Well just looked it up, and the reason was definitely wins. CYA voters love wins, and Seaver had 25, compared to 21 for Marichal.



There might be something to the Roseboro incident keeping Marichal as a scorn public figure.

I tend to think he was just unfortunate on when he played. His early career was coincided with Koufax, who nobody was going to beat for the CYA. Then later in his career he competed with Bob Gibson, who was outstanding as well.

[KCGHOST]

How the hell did Seaver outbeat Marichal in 1969?

You are kidding right. The leader of the 1969 Miracle Mets over someone on the Left Coast surprises you? By the standards of the day a pitcher going 25-7 on a division winner sure is better than a pitcher that goes 21-11 on a loser is a no-brainer. Even today it would carry the balloting by a wide margin.

We stat oriented types just have to understand that we aren't going to convince everybody of our methods.

[flash143817]

You are kidding right. The leader of the 1969 Miracle Mets over someone on the Left Coast surprises you? By the standards of the day a pitcher going 25-7 on a division winner sure is better than a pitcher that goes 21-11 on a loser is a no-brainer. Even today it would carry the balloting by a wide margin.

We stat oriented types just have to understand that we aren't going to convince everybody of our methods.

Very true. And even the peripheral stats are close enough that it could go either way and picking the guy with more wins on a WS champion is acceptable.

[JRB]

No kidding. Problem is, some of Marichal's best years were when someone was so dominant, they deserved the Cy Young.



I think you hit the nail on the head with your first sentence quoted above.

Marichal had high caliber Cy Young type seasons in 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968 and 1969. Bridesmaid to Koufax in 63, 65, and 66, Gibson in 68, Seaver in 69, and unfortunately they did not give Cy Young awards for each league in 64 so he lost out to Dean Chance in the rival AL.

However, I think a strong case can be made that Marichald deserves the CY YOUNG AWARD FOR THE ENTIRE DECADE OF THE 1960'S, and I would belatedly cast a nomination that he be retroactively given that award. Consider Koufax only played 2/3rd's of the decade, Seaver less than a third, , Gibson had a couple of his biggest seasons in the 70's, and I think Marichal edges out Gibson in head to head competition each season if only years in the 1960's are considered.

c JRB

[538280]

It is rather strange. Marichal received almost zero CYA support his whole career, he only got one not even high place vote in 1971. I don't really think he was a clear winner or that he deserved it definitely any year, but you'd still think he'd get more support than that. Gibson and Koufax had it sealed up with their awesome seasons (and rightfully so). Marichal was a great pitcher though. His won/lost records are a little inflated with great support but he's still a great pitcher-top 25 IMO.

[JRB]

Hi Chris. Nice to hear from you. It looks like you've got a new avatar.

[538280]

Hi Chris. Nice to hear from you. It looks like you've got a new avatar.

Nice to see you back as well JRB. Yes I do have a new avatar. Hope you like it.

[TonyStarks]

Does Marichal's run compare to Dave Stewarts Oakland days when he won 20 or more for 4 consecutive years?

Although, Marichal was much more dominant during his era!

[DTF955]

ERA and strikeouts are very similar. Others are small edge to Marichal. Without looking it up, it was probably wins that got Seaver the CYA, fair or not. I can definitely see Marichal having a case, but the numbers are close enough that Seaver isn't a terrible choice over him. The funny part is though that Marichal didn't even get a single vote that year.

Well just looked it up, and the reason was definitely wins. CYA voters love wins, and Seaver had 25, compared to 21 for Marichal.

What about run support? I know the Giants had a very potent offense, with McCovey having his best season. Whereas the Mets were almost like a deadball era team, though they had a little pop.

With records so similar otherwise, even the "statheads" should probably look at that, not just the pitchers' stats themselves :-)

What was the Mets' combined ERA their last 40 games or so - wasn't it under 2.00? Some crazy figure, I know.

[Lin_Kuei_Fighter]

I am very serious when I say Marichal should've won the 1969 Cy Young. Besides the wins/loss ratio, what does Seaver have over Marichal? He only has 3 more K's, Marichal pitched 20 more innings when an identical ERA+ but a lower WHIP.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

It is rather strange. Marichal received almost zero CYA support his whole career, he only got one not even high place vote in 1971. I don't really think he was a clear winner or that he deserved it definitely any year, but you'd still think he'd get more support than that. Gibson and Koufax had it sealed up with their awesome seasons (and rightfully so). Marichal was a great pitcher though. His won/lost records are a little inflated with great support but he's still a great pitcher-top 25 IMO.
The voting system was different in Marichal's day. Voters could only vote for one pitcher. So when someone claims that Marichal never received even one vote in the 1960s, while technically true, is completely misleading. If they had the current Cy Young voting system back in the 1960s, Marichal would have picked up plenty of second, third, and fourth place votes.

[nerfan]

I am very serious when I say Marichal should've won the 1969 Cy Young. Besides the wins/loss ratio, what does Seaver have over Marichal? He only has 3 more K's, Marichal pitched 20 more innings when an identical ERA+ but a lower WHIP.

He pitched on a division winner while Marichal played on a loser. If Marichal had done far better than Seaver- say 320 innings and a 190 ERA+- I'd be compelled to give Marichal the award. Right now I would say they are in a dead heat, with no one the clear advantage.

BTW, I love how Steve Trachsel had a 4.97 ERA in 2006 and went 15-8, this year with Baltimore he's got a 4.95 ERA pitching in the much stronger AL East and with a record of 5-6 through 17 starts.

Wins are over-rated, but Seaver also had 1.62 ERA in the second half, thrusting his team 8 games ahead of the Cubs.

[Lin_Kuei_Fighter]

I don't care what kind of team they were on, I look stats, and only stats. By the numbers, Marichal deserved the Cy Young. Period.

[flash143817]

I don't care what kind of team they were on, I look stats, and only stats. By the numbers, Marichal deserved the Cy Young. Period.

Check the run support numbers and I'm pretty sure you find some stats that support Seaver better. Seaver almost certainly won more games despite having inferior run support. I've heard that career-wise Marichal has some of the best run support (if not THE best) of any of the historically great pitchers.

Also, since when is the pitcher with the most wins and best ERA+ not the best pitcher? :p

[The Commissioner]

Seaver won four more games than Marichal while losing four less. That's a .781 winning precentage for Seaver versus a .656 winning percentage for Marichal. Marichal had three more shutouts and an ERA of .11 less. Does that really make it such a travesty that Seaver won over Marichal?

[Lin_Kuei_Fighter]

I don't care about wins/losses/shutouts. ERA, Strikeouts, ERA+, WHIP, that stuff. And that stuff Marichal A: Comes out on top, B: Seaver wins by a hair.

[538280]

I've heard that career-wise Marichal has some of the best run support (if not THE best) of any of the historically great pitchers.


He does. His run support was 16% above average over his career. That makes Jack Morris' (7% above) look like nothing.