If Cy Young were transported to our time

[darkxshade]

How many wins do you think he could pull off after 22 seasons? It's hard to imagine baseball being as competitive as it is today back then. Drug abuse aside, how would he compare to the ace pitchers we have had over the last decade? And with that under consideration, do you think it'll ever be possible for any pitcher to top his record?

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: darkxshade
And with that under consideration, do you think it'll ever be possible for any pitcher to top his record?

Nobody will ever come close with modern pitching rotations.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: darkxshade
How many wins do you think he could pull off after 22 seasons? It's hard to imagine baseball being as competitive as it is today back then. Drug abuse aside, how would he compare to the ace pitchers we have had over the last decade? And with that under consideration, do you think it'll ever be possible for any pitcher to top his record?

In my head I think most "transported" players from the past probably would not even make it to the minors. But Cy Young's stats are ridiculous.

 

[IAteYourMother]

probably 8, before cocaine destroys his life.

 

[Perknose]

He'd be on a pitch count and in a five man rotation just like everyone else.

He'd also be desperately trying to learn a slider and how to be polite to Negroes. 😉

 

[Gothgar]

Originally posted by: Perknose
He'd be on a pitch count and in a five man rotation just like everyone else.

He'd also be desperately trying to learn a slider and how to be polite to Negroes. 😉

😀

 

[KLin]

He pitched 749 complete games out of 815 career starts?!?!??! HOLY CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPP!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cy_Young

 

[vonmises]

Based on his .618 win percentage and an average of 30 decisions a year he would have about 400 wins. The .618 is similar to Greg Maddux. Cy Young only averaged 32 starts a season which is less than Maddux(34). The big difference, is not the rotation, but the use of relief pitching. Cy Young averaged 30 compete games a year, even the biggest work horses today may only get 5. The is no real way to compare eras, but I think that assuming he was as effective as his stats show, he could win about 360-370 career games.

Edit:
So baseball reference doesn't take a proper average: Cy Young had 37 starts per year as a mean. Maddux had about 32 that accounts for 68 wins(5x22x.618), So I would drop my guess to about 345 wins based on his win percentage, though I don't know how to figure if that would change.

Baseball then had fewer teams, so you wouldn't have nearly as many players who could barely make the minors, but you also lacked all the black/latin players so that may be close to wash.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: vonmises
Based on his .618 win percentage and an average of 30 decisions a year he would have about 400 wins. The .618 is similar to Greg Maddux. Cy Young only averaged 32 starts a season which is less than Maddux(34). The big difference, is not the rotation, but the use of relief pitching. Cy Young averaged 30 compete games a year, even the biggest work horses today may only get 5. The is no real way to compare eras, but I think that assuming he was as effective as his stats show, he could win about 360-370 career games.

Edit:
So baseball reference doesn't take a proper average: Cy Young had 37 starts per year as a mean. Maddux had about 32 that accounts for 68 wins(5x22x.618), So I would drop my guess to about 345 wins based on his win percentage, though I don't know how to figure if that would change.

Baseball then had fewer teams, so you wouldn't have nearly as many players who could barely make the minors, but you also lacked all the black/latin players so that may be close to wash.

Have you ever even played baseball?

 

[Barfo]

17

 

[vonmises]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: vonmises
Based on his .618 win percentage and an average of 30 decisions a year he would have about 400 wins. The .618 is similar to Greg Maddux. Cy Young only averaged 32 starts a season which is less than Maddux(34). The big difference, is not the rotation, but the use of relief pitching. Cy Young averaged 30 compete games a year, even the biggest work horses today may only get 5. The is no real way to compare eras, but I think that assuming he was as effective as his stats show, he could win about 360-370 career games.

Edit:
So baseball reference doesn't take a proper average: Cy Young had 37 starts per year as a mean. Maddux had about 32 that accounts for 68 wins(5x22x.618), So I would drop my guess to about 345 wins based on his win percentage, though I don't know how to figure if that would change.

Baseball then had fewer teams, so you wouldn't have nearly as many players who could barely make the minors, but you also lacked all the black/latin players so that may be close to wash.

Have you ever even played baseball?

Not since High School, though that wasn't to long ago, but I don't see what that has to do with this. Cy young was one of the best of his generation, using the stats of on of the best of ours I made a guess for wins.

Granted I didn't play professional baseball in the early 1900's and I don't play it today so I have no experience to speak on, if you have a better estimation go for it.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: vonmises

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: vonmises
Based on his .618 win percentage and an average of 30 decisions a year he would have about 400 wins. The .618 is similar to Greg Maddux. Cy Young only averaged 32 starts a season which is less than Maddux(34). The big difference, is not the rotation, but the use of relief pitching. Cy Young averaged 30 compete games a year, even the biggest work horses today may only get 5. The is no real way to compare eras, but I think that assuming he was as effective as his stats show, he could win about 360-370 career games.

Edit:
So baseball reference doesn't take a proper average: Cy Young had 37 starts per year as a mean. Maddux had about 32 that accounts for 68 wins(5x22x.618), So I would drop my guess to about 345 wins based on his win percentage, though I don't know how to figure if that would change.

Baseball then had fewer teams, so you wouldn't have nearly as many players who could barely make the minors, but you also lacked all the black/latin players so that may be close to wash.

Have you ever even played baseball?

Not since High School, though that wasn't to long ago, but I don't see what that has to do with this. Cy young was one of the best of his generation, using the stats of on of the best of ours I made a guess for wins.

Granted I didn't play professional baseball in the early 1900's and I don't play it today so I have no experience to speak on, if you have a better estimation go for it.

Ahhhh, so you're simply clueless. I see.

 

[Mo0o]

Not nearly as many as people would want to believe. The average modern professional athlete is infintely better than what the leagues had back in those days

 

[vonmises]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: vonmises

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: vonmises
Based on his .618 win percentage and an average of 30 decisions a year he would have about 400 wins. The .618 is similar to Greg Maddux. Cy Young only averaged 32 starts a season which is less than Maddux(34). The big difference, is not the rotation, but the use of relief pitching. Cy Young averaged 30 compete games a year, even the biggest work horses today may only get 5. The is no real way to compare eras, but I think that assuming he was as effective as his stats show, he could win about 360-370 career games.

Edit:
So baseball reference doesn't take a proper average: Cy Young had 37 starts per year as a mean. Maddux had about 32 that accounts for 68 wins(5x22x.618), So I would drop my guess to about 345 wins based on his win percentage, though I don't know how to figure if that would change.

Baseball then had fewer teams, so you wouldn't have nearly as many players who could barely make the minors, but you also lacked all the black/latin players so that may be close to wash.

Have you ever even played baseball?

Not since High School, though that wasn't to long ago, but I don't see what that has to do with this. Cy young was one of the best of his generation, using the stats of on of the best of ours I made a guess for wins.

Granted I didn't play professional baseball in the early 1900's and I don't play it today so I have no experience to speak on, if you have a better estimation go for it.

Ahhhh, so you're simply clueless. I see.

would you mind explaining that please? Like I said there is no real way to compare eras, though I'd love to see someone build a model to do such a thing.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: darkxshade
How many wins do you think he could pull off after 22 seasons? It's hard to imagine baseball being as competitive as it is today back then. Drug abuse aside, how would he compare to the ace pitchers we have had over the last decade? And with that under consideration, do you think it'll ever be possible for any pitcher to top his record?

The answer to your last question is the reason the first is impossible to answer.

Nobody will ever top Cy Young's win record. Nobody.

Cy Young and today's game of baseball are like oil and water. They don't mix. The game of today isn't the game of 100 years ago.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: vonmises
would you mind explaining that please? Like I said there is no real way to compare eras, though I'd love to see someone build a model to do such a thing.

Any such model would have to have a ton of mediating variables in an attempt to equalize between the two vastly different eras.

Even then, it would only be a theoretical model, based on a pile of hidden assumptions, and not to be confused with reality.

Your "model", a simplistic and straightforward extrapolation based solely on games started, had none.

It was doomed, Jim, doomed.

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: vonmises
would you mind explaining that please? Like I said there is no real way to compare eras, though I'd love to see someone build a model to do such a thing.

Any such model would have to have a ton of mediating variables in an attempt to equalize between the two vastly different eras.

Even then, it would only be a theoretical model, based on a pile of hidden assumptions, and not to be confused with reality.

Your "model", a simplistic and straightforward extrapolation based solely on games started, had none.

It was doomed, Jim, doomed.

So you call him clueless? It was a loaded question to begin with that no one expects a true comparison can be made. All he did was take the only known facts we have and compare them to today.

He even admitted there was no real way to compare eras. You just came off sounding like an arrogant prick.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: vonmises
would you mind explaining that please? Like I said there is no real way to compare eras, though I'd love to see someone build a model to do such a thing.

Any such model would have to have a ton of mediating variables in an attempt to equalize between the two vastly different eras.

Even then, it would only be a theoretical model, based on a pile of hidden assumptions, and not to be confused with reality.

Your "model", a simplistic and straightforward extrapolation based solely on games started, had none.

It was doomed, Jim, doomed.

So you call him clueless? It was a loaded question to begin with that no one expects a true comparison can be made. All he did was take the only known facts we have and compare them to today.

He even admitted there was no real way to compare eras. You just came off sounding like an arrogant prick.

You have hurt my feelings. 🙁

OH, and you added NOTHING at all to the conversation except for calling me an arrogant prick, you arrogant little prick.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: vonmises
would you mind explaining that please? Like I said there is no real way to compare eras, though I'd love to see someone build a model to do such a thing.

Any such model would have to have a ton of mediating variables in an attempt to equalize between the two vastly different eras.

Even then, it would only be a theoretical model, based on a pile of hidden assumptions, and not to be confused with reality.

Your "model", a simplistic and straightforward extrapolation based solely on games started, had none.

It was doomed, Jim, doomed.

So you call him clueless? It was a loaded question to begin with that no one expects a true comparison can be made. All he did was take the only known facts we have and compare them to today.

He even admitted there was no real way to compare eras. You just came off sounding like an arrogant prick.

You have hurt my feelings. 🙁

OH, and you added NOTHING at all to the conversation except for calling me an arrogant prick, you arrogant little prick.

You really are acting like an ass. It is behavior unbecoming of someone of your status here.

If you're being facetious, I apologize, but it doesn't seem that way to me.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: vonmises

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: vonmises
Based on his .618 win percentage and an average of 30 decisions a year he would have about 400 wins. The .618 is similar to Greg Maddux. Cy Young only averaged 32 starts a season which is less than Maddux(34). The big difference, is not the rotation, but the use of relief pitching. Cy Young averaged 30 compete games a year, even the biggest work horses today may only get 5. The is no real way to compare eras, but I think that assuming he was as effective as his stats show, he could win about 360-370 career games.

Edit:
So baseball reference doesn't take a proper average: Cy Young had 37 starts per year as a mean. Maddux had about 32 that accounts for 68 wins(5x22x.618), So I would drop my guess to about 345 wins based on his win percentage, though I don't know how to figure if that would change.

Baseball then had fewer teams, so you wouldn't have nearly as many players who could barely make the minors, but you also lacked all the black/latin players so that may be close to wash.

Have you ever even played baseball?

Not since High School, though that wasn't to long ago, but I don't see what that has to do with this. Cy young was one of the best of his generation, using the stats of on of the best of ours I made a guess for wins.

Granted I didn't play professional baseball in the early 1900's and I don't play it today so I have no experience to speak on, if you have a better estimation go for it.

Ahhhh, so you're simply clueless. I see.

why are you being a dick. he's wrong but atleast he tried to use some sense in trying to figure it out.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: vonmises
would you mind explaining that please? Like I said there is no real way to compare eras, though I'd love to see someone build a model to do such a thing.

Any such model would have to have a ton of mediating variables in an attempt to equalize between the two vastly different eras.

Even then, it would only be a theoretical model, based on a pile of hidden assumptions, and not to be confused with reality.

Your "model", a simplistic and straightforward extrapolation based solely on games started, had none.

It was doomed, Jim, doomed.

So you call him clueless? It was a loaded question to begin with that no one expects a true comparison can be made. All he did was take the only known facts we have and compare them to today.

He even admitted there was no real way to compare eras. You just came off sounding like an arrogant prick.

You have hurt my feelings. 🙁

OH, and you added NOTHING at all to the conversation except for calling me an arrogant prick, you arrogant little prick.

you're talking yourself into a corner...quit now.

 

[SludgeFactory]

All I can say for sure is that he wouldn't get 511 wins. As Perk said, somebody along the way would have forced him to learn a slider, and he'd probably have blown out that indestructible arm of his in the minors trying to master it 😛

It's really difficult to project him into the future, during his career the basic rules were still changing *massively*. His first full season was 1891. Up until the mid 1890's, they were still screwing around with whether a foul ball/bunt/tip was a strike or not, where the pitcher would stand (he pitched a couple seasons at 50' from the batter :Q), they went from standing in a chalk box to standing on a pitching rubber, which suddenly made a raised pitching mound important and advantageous for a pitcher, and then the height of the pitching mound was not regulated until 1903, etc etc. Things were evolving continuously, the game was still primitive, the rule makers were trying to get the right balance of offense vs. pitching into the game.

The great dead ball pitchers all talked about cruising or coasting to some degree until they "got into a pinch," then they would bear down and really raise their velocity. They were able to pace themselves and save their arms with the dead ball. With little threat of the ball going out of the park (especially in some of the pasture sized outfields back then), if nobody was on base, you could go right at a hitter and make him put it in play. Today's game would be a lot better if we could get a little bit of that spirit back into it. But I digress...

He's known for legendary control, but he had a dominating fastball, at least for the first half of his career. (Cy = The Cyclone.) According to Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers, when his fastball started to diminish, he left the NL and developed a variety of curves and possibly a screwball, and would continually mess around with arm angles throughout a game. When he was a kid/teenager, overhand pitching was still prohibited in baseball, so he had a submarine pitch or two in his repertoire. Imagine him dropping that on you out of the blue.

So I figure he could make it today. The ability to pitch a baseball accurately and deceptively is timeless. He displayed a great ability to adapt, whether it be to rule changes or physical limitations. But, since his fastball was apparently on the wane in his early 30's *with* the advantage of a dead ball, it's hard to believe he would have enough left in the tank to survive into his 40's in modern baseball, even as a pure junkballer. But then, look at Jamie Moyer. Hell, Tom Glavine junkballed his way to 300 wins.



Cliffs:
1) The rules changed a lot in his day, he adapted
2) The dead ball saved his arm (yeah I know, duh)
3) He had superb control always, a great fastball for a while
4) He could pitch now, but not as long

 

[kranky]

Cy Young's career win record is so far beyond untouchable, it's ridiculous. In today's game, the greatest pitchers (Clemens, Carlton, Maddux, etc.) ended up more than 7 20-win seasons behind Young.

If he was pitching today he might get 300.

 

[Perknose]

Ok, ok, my bad, and my apologies to vonmises for senselessly overreacting. :brokenheart:

 

[slayer202]

he'd be lucky to get 1 win...