Is MLB about to get its first Cy Young winner with a losing record?

Are wins a pitcher stat? Well, no, obviously, since despite “winning” being the goal of a baseball game the starting pitcher has the rather simple limitation of not being able to score runs themselves. With the dawn of advanced analytics and the death of the complete game, wins are less important to a pitcher’s stature in the sport than ever. Yet the stat continues to be overvalued in awards voting, so much so that MLB has never seen a Cy Young winner* with a losing record. But looking at the 2026 American League race and recent MLB history tells me that streak is not going to last forever. 

(*MLB has, in fact, seen a Cy Young winner with a losing record: 2003 Eric Gagne, who was 2-3 with 55 saves. He was a closer, and we are not counting closers.)

The 2026 AL could see the first ever Cy Young winner with a losing record

The 2026 NL race probably won’t break the streak, but in the AL, we have intrigue:  Cam Schlittler is projected to win the Cy Young Award, with a reasonably safe 7-3 record. But after him, we have Tarik Skubal, Dylan Cease, Bryan Woo and Joe Ryan all at or one game above .500. Cease, in particular, has had an excellent season despite his 3-3 record, and if Schlittler falls off or gets injured, we could have our first race-to-sub-.500 Cy Young. 

I’m fascinated by stupid statistical achievements like this. Since the AL and NL began splitting Cy Young awards in 1967, the worst non-reliever record I can find from a winner before 2010 is in 1981, with Fernando Valenzuela going 13-7 and probably stealing one of maybe 12 Cy Youngs Nolan Ryan could have won. After 2010, things get interesting, as advanced stats began influencing awards voting more and more. Felix Hernandez went 13-12 and won the award in 2010, and then Jacob deGrom went back-to-back in 2018-2019 with respective 10-9 and 11-8 campaigns. 

MLB has rightly moved away from wins as an important pitcher stat

There is still the occasional wins-pilled crime scene, like when my Red Sox king Rick Porcello (22-4) beat out Justin Verlander (16-9, but almost doubled Porcello in WAR, had a better ERA and WHIP and 65 more Ks lol) in 2016, but on balance we’ve really reformed our perception of pitcher wins. The first ever .500 winner came last year, with Paul Skenes winning the award at 10-10. Skenes came into this season the runaway favorite to finally pull off a win with a losing record, but the Pirates have been annoyingly competent at scoring runs. 

If anything, pitchers should be chasing such an illustrious feat, since winning the Cy Young on a team that cannot score is one of the most baller things you can do in sports. It would actually enhance the aura of whoever gets it done. Historically, when determining the greatness and legacy of an individual, Major League Baseball is by far the most wins-agnostic of any major American sport. I don’t think a Cy Young winner who went 11-13 would even be remotely upset about it, nor would anyone blame them.* They should get a parade.

(*Some people would blame them, those people would not be invited to my birthday party.)

In the NBA, winning championships is a prerequisite to being an all-time great, with only a few Charles Barkleys and Chris Pauls — neither of whom are considered a top-20 player. In hockey, most of the all-time greats have one Stanley Cup or several; in football, “wins are a quarterback stat.” In baseball, though? We have gods of the game who have never won much of anything. Ted Williams, Mike Trout, Ken Griffey Jr. — no one seriously doubts the credentials, and there’s not a World Series in sight. 

It is possible that the voting establishment simply will not be able to bring themselves to vote for a 9-12 Skenes season in 2028, even if he has a 0.61 ERA and 700 strikeouts. But I believe in the sub-.500 Cy Young winner like some believe in bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. I’m not crazy! It’s real, it’s out there, you’ll see. You’ll all see.

Add us as a preferred source on Google

Follow