Cy Young Heat Check← Japanese
Ranking updated: 2026-07-10 01:37 JST
An independent rating model tracking the 2026 NL Cy Young race (as of Jul 10, 2026).
Current Ranking (Independent Score)
Shohei Daily Lab Original Model. 2026 NL Cy Young rankings produced by our independent model. Backtested on the 20 NL+AL Cy Young races from 2016–2025: Winner Hit Rate 85% / Top-3 set match 93%. Updated each start by Ohtani or his main rivals. Not affiliated with MLB — an experimental lab project.
| # | Pitcher | Score | W-L | ERA | WHIP | K | IP | rWAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1— |  J. MISIOROWSKI · MIL | 93.6 | 10-4 | 1.62 | 0.76 | 167 | 111.0 | 4.29 |
| 2— |  C. SANCHEZ · PHI | 74.4 | 10-4 | 2.62 | 1.16 | 137 | 120.1 | 4.99 |
| 3— |  Z. WHEELER · PHI | 73.3 | 9-1 | 2.28 | 0.91 | 98 | 87.0 | 4.25 |
| 4▲1 |  SHOHEI OHTANI · LAD | 71.5 | 8-2 | 1.79 | 0.95 | 95 | 85.2 | 2.71 |
| 5▼1 |  C. BURNS · CIN | 69.9 | 11-1 | 2.54 | 1.11 | 118 | 102.2 | 4.28 |
| 6— |  C. SALE · ATL | 66.3 | 9-6 | 2.27 | 1.12 | 112 | 95.0 | 2.84 |
| 7— |  Y. YAMAMOTO · LAD | 64.8 | 9-5 | 2.49 | 0.88 | 100 | 104.2 | 2.84 |
| 8— |  M. MEYER · MIA | 63.1 | 9-1 | 2.58 | 1.11 | 116 | 108.0 | 3.05 |
| 9▲1 |  J. WROBLESKI · LAD | 56.0 | 10-2 | 2.69 | 1.02 | 73 | 100.1 | 2.49 |
| 10▲1 |  B. ASHCRAFT · PIT | 54.4 | 9-3 | 3.24 | 1.10 | 122 | 108.1 | 2.83 |
Shohei Daily Lab original model · 85% winner hit rate (2016–25, NL+AL) · as of Jul 10, 2026 · not affiliated with MLB
Recent Starts
Inside the Model — Weights (out of 100)
An independent 100-point rating model. Weights were derived from how BBWAA voters actually behaved over the last decade in the AL and NL — strikeouts (the "dominance" signal) get extra weight.
| Metric | Weight | Why it’s weighted this way |
|---|---|---|
| ERA / Run prevention | 30 | The metric voters track most. 8 of 10 recent winners led their league in ERA. |
| rWAR / Cumulative value | 22 | Baseball-Reference rWAR (2-decimal). Pitchers with elite WAR consistently rise in voting. |
| Strikeouts / Dominance | 20 | Voters reward strikeouts as the marker of dominance more than is widely assumed. |
| Innings / Durability | 13 | A volume tiebreaker between pitchers with otherwise comparable rate stats (ERA/WHIP). |
| WHIP / Baserunners | 7 | Correlates with ERA, so weighted lightly to avoid double counting. |
| Wins | 6 | Limited independent predictive value — kept small as a residual "narrative" point. |
| Contender team bonus | 2 | Minor — winners have come from last-place teams. |
| Total | 100 | |
Scoring is relative within each season's actual top-5 vote pool. ERA and WHIP are scored against the league's average ERA (ERA+ style). WAR is the real rWAR (2-decimal) from Baseball-Reference.
How Reliable Is the Model?
Backtested on the 20 NL+AL Cy Young races from 2016–2025: Winner Hit Rate 85% · Top-3 set match 93% · Exact 1-2-3 order 45% (every actual winner was a starter; excluding the 2 years where a reliever finished in the top-5 — AL2016 Britton 4th, AL2024 Clase 3rd: hit 89% / top-3 93%).
- Winner Hit Rate 85% — the model's #1 matched the actual Cy Young winner in 17 of 20 races.
- Top-3 set match 93% — the average overlap between the model's top 3 and the voters' top 3.
- Exact 1-2-3 order 45% — years where the model got the precise winner→2nd→3rd ordering right. Close races where the voters themselves split make exact order naturally unstable.
Three Cases Where the Model Diverged from Voters
The 3 misses out of 20. All three were tight, contested races at the time — the kind of year even human voters find hard to call. A miss doesn't mean the model is wrong; in some cases it sides with what later analysis came to favor.
2016 AL
| Player | W-L | ERA | IP | K | Pts | 1st-pl. | Finish | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual #1 | Porcello | 22-4 | 3.15 | 223.0 | 189 | 137 | 8/30 | 1 |
| Model #1 | Verlander | 16-9 | 3.04 | 227.2 | 254 | 132 | 14/30 | 2 |
The famous "Porcello controversy." Verlander had far more first-place votes (14 vs 8), but Porcello won by 5 points on the strength of 2nd–5th place votes. The model favors the statistically dominant Verlander — the side history has tended to side with.
2021 NL
| Player | W-L | ERA | IP | K | Pts | 1st-pl. | Finish | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual #1 | Burnes | 11-5 | 2.43 | 167.0 | 234 | 151 | 12/30 | 1 |
| Model #1 | Scherzer | 15-4 | 2.46 | 179.1 | 236 | 113 | 6/30 | 3 |
The tightest NL race of the decade — Burnes 151 vs runner-up Wheeler 141 (just 10 points). Burnes had the rate-stat edge in fewer starts; Scherzer had the wins and a 0.864 WHIP. The voters themselves were genuinely split.
2019 AL
| Player | W-L | ERA | IP | K | Pts | 1st-pl. | Finish | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual #1 | Verlander | 21-6 | 2.58 | 223.0 | 300 | 171 | 17/30 | 1 |
| Model #1 | Cole | 20-5 | 2.50 | 212.1 | 326 | 159 | 13/30 | 2 |
Astros teammate showdown decided by a thin margin (1st-place votes 17-13, total margin 12 points). Cole led in ERA, strikeouts, and WHIP — the model picks Cole. The voters were split right to the end.
For context: in calmer years (deGrom’s back-to-back NL wins, the unanimous wins by Alcántara / Skubal / Cole, Snell, Bieber, and recent ones like Sale’s 2024 Triple Crown or Scherzer 2016) the model agrees with the voters completely.
How This Ranking Works
Two automated steps, every day:
- Pool selection — the top 20 NL starters by FanGraphs WAR (Ohtani is always pinned, even below the qualified-IP line).
- Relative scoring — within those 20, our independent model (real rWAR, ERA, strikeouts/K9, WHIP, innings, wins, scaled to league-average ERA) ranks them.
This is not a future prediction — it is "how the race would look if the vote were held today." Recalculated each start by Ohtani or his main rivals. Relief pitchers are outside the model's scope (low IP × tiny ERA distorts the score) — a starters' race only.