do you think pitcher's winning percentage should really classify how good they are?

Josh Johnson is only 10-5 and basically has the same era as roy halladay by .03 and basically the same era by .06 and he is on a worse team. i think josh johnson needs to be mentioned more.

I am not going to say that winning percentage is not important because it it. It requires stamina to go at least 5 innings in a game to qualify for the win and it is obviously good if you have a high winning percentage. However, that could just mean you offense is a beast. Good example this year is Yankees pitcher Phil Hughes, great record but has an ERA over 4.00. This is why I was quite happy with the AL selection of Zack Greinke for Cy Young last year. He lost more 1 run games with the Royals last year than anyone, his ERA was immaculate and he was the most dominant pitcher, even though his team didn't always win, he pitched well enough to win every time.

Yes this argument gets brought up a lot. But can we really look solely on ERA and WHIP? Couldnt we create a new argument talking about how the defense behind a pitcher should be factored in too?

Like the Minnesota Twins lead the AL in least errors made, but their offense isn't top notch especially without Morneau.

Its really a double-edged sword. Also, Josh Johnson has a better ERA than Roy Halladay.

Winning percentage is certainly not that meaningful - especially when comparing pitchers from different organizations. Run support and defense make a big difference. I usually use ERA, ERA+, WHIP and the SO/BB ratio when evaluating a pitcher.

However, even those stats can be misleading. Two pitchers can have the same ERA, the same WHIP, the same run support and one will be .500 and the other .750 winning percentage. (One pitcher throws a shutout one game, then gives up six runs the next, then a shutout, then gives up six. The other just gives up three runs each game and wins much more consistently)

So, ultimately, you need to take a look at winning percentage but take a look at the pitcher's log to see how consistent he has been and not just what his accumulated averages are.

Not at all. The AL Cy Young winner last year came from Kansas City Royals, one of the worst teams in baseball. He had a dismal amount of wins but his ERA and other stats were incredible. Its more about there personal stats such as ERA, WHIP and strikeout to walk ratio.

Not at all.

Last year, Lincecum won the Cy Young will only 15 wins and Wainright didn't and he had 19. They say that pitching wins the game, but with out scoring runs --- how the hell are you going to win? There are a lot of good pitchers that don't have good run support. Therefore, they won't always end up with victories, but can still dominate.

I agree.. Generally Cy Young voters know enough about baseball to discount wins/losses and out more focus on important stats like ERA and WHIP and k/9.. Which is why Tim Hudson is a big talk for Cy Young right now.. And Halladay is amazing, people don't have to talk about him ha..

No. The only stat that means anything at all for a pitcher is his ERA. WHIP, Ks, wins, losses, winning percentage don't mean anything. Look at Walter Johnson's stats.

nicely, you may continuously checklist those pitchers who have been a occupation a million - 0 or some thing like that. yet based on a minimum of 200 judgements, it is Pedro Martinez with a occupation checklist of 206-ninety two (.691).