Wins and the Cy Young
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
We know what is going to happen. Roger Clemens will finsih third in the NL Cy Young race on virtue of his won loss record, as compared to that of Carpenter and Willis. This will be another example of ignorance by sportswriters on what constitutes 'the best'.
I have said it a million times, wins for a starting pitcher are one of the most overrated stats in all of sports. Everyone should know the pitfalls of judging pitchers on wins, yet it is always done.
Houston was held scoreless in Nine of Clemens's 32 starts this year, and Clemens is going to be penalized for that. Carpenter's ERA is nearly a full run higher than Clemens, but Carpenter, or should I say the CARDINALS, has 21 wins and he will finish higher in the voting. This brings me to remember the biggest miscarriage of justice in Cy Young voting history, and it happened to invovle Clemens as well!!
In 1990 Clemens had an ERA of 1.93, and Bob Welch was at 2.95. Add on that Clemens had a home park that was a better hitters park, and you should have a landslide Cy Young victory in Clemens's favor!! Yet Welch won it because he, or should I say the A's, had 27 wins.
Heck, even the ridiculously stupid premise of being on a first place team didn't even factor here as both won their divisions.
So that leaves the writers to giving the Cy Young to Bob Welch because his teammates scored more runs in more opportune times for him.
Part of me is happy that fans still believe in the 'knows how to win' logic for starting pitchers with high ERA's and high win totals. They just can't let themselves believe what is really at work. I just want to thank them people who I competed against in fantasy type leagues that drafted Rick Helling high the year after he won 20 games with a crummy ERA. Thanks! That extra money came in handy!
I have said it a million times, wins for a starting pitcher are one of the most overrated stats in all of sports. Everyone should know the pitfalls of judging pitchers on wins, yet it is always done.
Houston was held scoreless in Nine of Clemens's 32 starts this year, and Clemens is going to be penalized for that. Carpenter's ERA is nearly a full run higher than Clemens, but Carpenter, or should I say the CARDINALS, has 21 wins and he will finish higher in the voting. This brings me to remember the biggest miscarriage of justice in Cy Young voting history, and it happened to invovle Clemens as well!!
In 1990 Clemens had an ERA of 1.93, and Bob Welch was at 2.95. Add on that Clemens had a home park that was a better hitters park, and you should have a landslide Cy Young victory in Clemens's favor!! Yet Welch won it because he, or should I say the A's, had 27 wins.
Heck, even the ridiculously stupid premise of being on a first place team didn't even factor here as both won their divisions.
So that leaves the writers to giving the Cy Young to Bob Welch because his teammates scored more runs in more opportune times for him.
Part of me is happy that fans still believe in the 'knows how to win' logic for starting pitchers with high ERA's and high win totals. They just can't let themselves believe what is really at work. I just want to thank them people who I competed against in fantasy type leagues that drafted Rick Helling high the year after he won 20 games with a crummy ERA. Thanks! That extra money came in handy!
0
Comments
However, the fact that Clemens has already won seven Cy Youngs probably works against him as well.
So it comes down to who sucked the least down the stretch between Willis and Carps -- probably Carps gets it by default since the Cards made the post-season.
<< <i> After Clemems helped the Astros clinch a tie yesterday, I think Clemens should win the Cy Young, especially after Willis and Carpenter faltered so badly down the stretch. >>
I won't argue against Clemens getting it, but the last 4 starts when Carps got lit up we had already wrapped up the division. One thing I would like to to point out is that there has been no better big time pitcher then Carpenter this season. Look at what he did to the other Cy Young candidates when matched up head to head and I think that's why he should get it but it wouldn't upset to see Clemens do it.
9/3 Carps- 9 inn 2 ER
Clemens - 5 inn 2 ER
8/2 Carps- 9 inn 1 ER
Willis - 5 inn 1 ER
7/17 Carps - 9 inn 0 ER
Clemens - 7 inn ER
He always pitched well when against other teams aces and he closed out the games.
I just hope Houston manages to get past St Louis this year. It would be great to see him in the series one last time, especially if it's against either NY or Boston.
The only thing that matters in baseball is winning. I think it's wrong to call wins an overrated stat, as is often preached by some who seem to enjoy their fantasy baseball more than the real thing.
As with any yearly or career statistic, it only tells a small part of the story. There's nothing in a win/loss record that would tell you, for instance, that 32 of Carpenter's 33 starts were complete game efforts in which he gave up less than 1 run every time, and in the 33rd start he gave up 30 runs, which blew his ERA for the season. Some of those starts, his team didn't score any runs and he had his share of hard luck losses or ND, and in some others, his team scored a ton of runs for him. Yes I realize that's a dramatic and silly example, but hopefully you get the point.
Accept it for what it is. The guy who wins more games is the guy who pitched in more games that his team won, and winning is all that matters.
Anyways, why should a pitcher be penalized because he plays for a team that scores runs? And are you going to sit there and say that Clemens has never won the Cy Young when he wasn't the most deserving? You don't have to go far....last year, Randy Johnson had more K's and a lower ERA than Clemens, yet Clemens got the Cy Young.
So let's not have a pity party for Clemens...and to say that wins are overrated? Perhaps a bit...but to sit there and blast Carpenter and Willis because they play on teams that score runs allowing them to throw more strikes (and opponents to score more runs) is just wrong.
By the way, wins being preached as overrated isn't from a fantasy perspective. It is from a fact based research perspective on the history of baseball. Once again, people just discount evidence just so it fits their point of view.
Randy Johnson was the best pitcher last year and he SHOULD have won it. No pity for Clemens, but he is two in the hole as this year and 1990 go against him.
Again, Cy Youngs are meaningless, just like MVP's when the faulty criteria is used to determine them.
IP does play a part in it, as do hits/walks per IP, SLG% and OB% against. I didn't dig deep enough right now in those categories, but everyone has already given the award to they others based on wins, which prompted my post, and basing it on that is stupid, wrong, and done by people who really have no clue on what is at work. Or by people who just failed to look at the evidence of what is really at work in such a faulty stat as wins. If you can construct a case when IP and such are added to the mix, and that pushes a pitcher past Clemens, then that should be done. To use wins, or pick out a head to head match up is useless.
Axtell, your little smart alleck remark from a previous statement of mine lambasting batting average seems evident here. Wins and Batting average go neck and neck as the most overrated stat(with Total Saves probably next). Since overrated is a vague term, I can't say for sure which it is. Whatever it is, you sure need to do your homework, and get rid of the bias of batting average because of Ichiro. I hate bias.
I find it hillarious you get so worked up over something so minor.
You start your post going off about how Clemens is going to get robbed by the 'ignorance' of writers because they just look at wins, yet fail to recognize that Clemens 'undeservingly' (using your argument) won the cy young last year.
It goes in cycles, and Clemens isn't the most deserving this year.
End of story.
Anyways, I agree about Clemens in 1990. Hell, his own teammate (Dave Stewart) should've gotten more votes than Welch.
Skinpinch, who should win in the AL this year? Seriously, interested in your opinion, as most feel it is as equally open for contention.
And to keep this an interesting debate (instead of turning into a "dgbaseball is an idiot who doesn't understand stats" pissing match), what do you think about about Pedro in the NL? He threw more total innings (in fewer starts) than Clemens, had more Ks, and had more wins. In fact, other than the Peavy and Patterson, every other pitcher in the top 10 in ERA threw more innings than Clemens. Or what about Andy Pettitte even? Just how much is that sub-2.00 ERA really worth relative to all the other stats?
I can appreciate what you're saying about wins, but you started this thread basically asserting that Clemens deserved it and that all the stupid voters, with their decades of baseball experience, will get it wrong because he only won 13 games and will ignore his great ERA. Aren't you laying a little too much credit to an ERA? Don't you need to consider the team defense when thinking about ERA (see, I'm thinking out of the box like you now). Or the relievers stopping inherited runners from scoring? How many times did Clemens leave a game in the 7th with two runners only to have Wheeler or Qualls or even Lidge come in and strand his runners, which otherwise may've cost him some earned runs. Isn't his lower IP an indication that this might've happened frequently (or at least more frequently) than the others? Etc.
While the sub 2.00 ERA is always very impressive (and rightfully so) there are 6 guys within 1 run of that, all of whom had more wins and all of whom pitched more innings than Clemens. So is one run per 9 innings (for a guy who pitched 9 innings in a game only once) really that much of a difference, especially considering all this other information? Clemens goes 6 innings, gives up 1 earned run, leaves losing 1-0 because his team never scored. Carpenter goes 9 innings, gives up 3 earned runs in the first, then throws 8 shutout innings while his team comes back to win. Can you really say that the 1.5 ERA is so much better than the 3.00 ERA in this case so as to dismiss the value of Carpenter's W?
You can call those of us who think the "traditional" stats are sufficient idiots and ignorant all you want, but it seems to me that all your new math really does is try to disprove the obvious. To dig deeper beyond what really happened to discover something people will find more interesting or some % of a ratio that can be used to frame a simple game in an overly and unnecessarily complex way.
Anyone can prove anything with the rightly selected stats. But in the end, a win is a win.
Clemens lower IP total does bring the race closer, and one can determing how much. I am glad somebody mentioned that
My quote was "Roger Clemens will finsih third in the NL Cy Young race on virtue of his won loss record, as compared to that of Carpenter and Willis. This will be another example of ignorance by sportswriters on what constitutes 'the best'."
That is what the writers will base it on, the wins/losses. That is what they have based it on in the past (see 1990). See other years and other players too. See Clemens last year where Unit should have won. When they writers start using the more relevant measures for a pitcher(other than just ERA), then I will be happy, as then the award would actually have some merit.
Axtell, if you look at my second post I said that Johnson should have won it last year, and that he was robbed in favor of Clemens. I'm not some Clemens bias guy, I am putting cannon ball holes through the notion that WINS is a good stat to determine how good a starting pitcher is. Do the research throughout the history of the game, and you will see how other factors play such a big role in determing a win for a starting pitcher...factors that the SP has no control over. Axtell, it is like RBI!! They are teammate dependant stats. Part is due to ability of oneself, and the other part to your teammates. Just like in hitting, RBI shouldn't be used to judge a players ability. Just like Wins shouldn't be used.
The 30 extra innings does mean roughly an extra inning per start. In reality Carpenter did pitch a little more per start and did make one additional start than Clemens. I guess I can listen to Carpenter arguements along the same lines as I can reason starters over relievers for the award.
Have you read or done any analysis on the "value" of innings pitched? The only thing I can think of is to tie them to salary. Clemens comes in at $85K per inning and Carpenter is at around $8.3K per inning. You could devide Clemens salary in half due to his working on the cheap during '04 and he still comes in far more expensive than Carpenter. I realize that the voters will blindly take Willis or Carpenter, but I also think there are other factors that make their efforts closer to Clemens' effort than show up in the ERA. All that said, I'd still vote Clemens. The gap in ERA is just too large for me.
Then don't forget the ballpark factor! Houston is a tougher pitchers park than St. Louis, and that will give a little more advantage to Clemens.
Though the premise of my post wasn't a strict comparison of who was more worthy of the Cy Young, the premise was more about this insane reliance on Wins that always occurs when determining the better pitcher, and that Clemens would be dismissed based on the WON/LOSS record instead of other more important information.
Lets combine Clemens's numbers and add 30 extra IP of crummy relief pitchers so that we have the same IP as Carpenter.
Lets add 30 extra IP and 30 extra earned runs, for some really bad relief pitching, onto Clemens' totals. Typically you would expect league average performance in those extra innings out of the pen, but more than likely slightly better than average, as in close games those are typically the best relievers being used. We are using HORRIBLE numbers of 9.00 ERA in this example.
So Clemens and his 30 extra innings of crummy relief would bring 'his' ERA up to 2.76. So even with adding really bad relief pitching to Clemens (to equal out the IP of Carpenter), Clemens still has more value than the 2.83 ERA of Carpenter. If you add in the typical 4.50 ERA in those relief innings, then Clemens' new total would be a 2.51 ERA value.
Don't forget the ballpark factor. Houston is a tougher place to pitch than St. Louis, so that gap widens more. Of course Defense is a factor, and so is luck(giving up lots of hits but luckily having them spread out so less runs scored). I didn't look at that.
The actual formula to use is IP/9 x (league ERA-Individual ERA)= Number of runs saved above the average pitcher. That will give a more exact value of the pitcher. Then when you add ballpark factor, you are getting a lot closer.
Conclusion is that Clemens is indeed the best pitcher in the N.L this season. Wins donn't even come into the equation, as other very important factors determine when a pitcher gets a win..factors out of the pitchers control. Clemens's offense was held scoreless in nine of his starts. It is quite difficult to get 'wins' when that happens. An anemic offesne by Clemens's teammates should not be the measuring stick of how good he was, yet that is what Wins does.
"Pitching to the score", more garbage myth stuff. If a guy were capable to 'pitch to the score', then I would hire a offense that scores one run every game he pitches, because I know my guy could "pitch to the score", and he would throw shutouts left and right. "pitching to the score" is 99.9% the result of run support, or lack of. I've never seen a study to show otherwise. So if any poster has this as an argument, please toss it to the side where the loch ness monster and bigfoot are taking dumps.
No, let's not. Let's acknowledge that he didn't pitch as many innings and therefore was not as valuable to his team as a starting pitcher. That's the point of comparing IP. I know I mentioned something about using stats to disprove the obvious, but this is trying to use stats to ignore reality. You've tried to negate the actual IP difference (which in and of itself indicates a more effective starting pitcher) by hypothetically adding innings and runs to Clemens numbers? Well, hypothetically in my world, Clemens pitched 30 more innings and gave up 600 more runs. Just because that isn't whatever you consider league average, doesn't make it any less valid a scenario in this fantasy world.
Don't forget the ballpark factor. Houston is a tougher place to pitch than St. Louis, so that gap widens more
I take issue with this ballpark factor notion in general. Namely, I don't think it makes any sense these days with the clear exception of Colorado. When the Polo grounds was 480 ft to center, it could possibly be named a "pitchers park" - although it was also barely 250 down the lines at the time so who knows. But generally I think different parks have different characteristics that equally favor some types of hitters and hurt other types of hitters (lefty/righty, power/singles, pull/opposite field etc) to the point where it all balances out in the end.
What people call a great hitter's park is more accurately a park home to great hitters in a particular season, which also explains why people make comments about a park being a great hitter's park at a particular time and not another, which makes no logical sense if the park didn't actually change.
But putting that aside, I'm reading about something called "Park Factor" now. According to ESPN, here is what it means:
------
Park Factor compares the rate of stats at home vs. the rate of stats on the road. A rate higher than 1.000 favors the hitter. Below 1.000 favors the pitcher. PF = ((homeRS + homeRA)/(homeG)) / ((roadRS + roadRA)/(roadG)) * Teams with home games in multiple stadiums list aggregate Park Factors
------
The Astros park factor in Runs is lowest in baseball, which according to their definition makes it a "pitcher's park". Busch stadium is 4th highest, indicating a "hitter's park". When I sort by HR, I again find the Cardinals at the top, and Astros this time in the middle of the pack. Same for 2B, 3B and BB.
So what does this tell me?
1. Were I to subscribe to the notion of "park factor", it appears MM park was actually one of the worst hitters parks and Busch is one of the best, not the other way around.
2. If I believed #1, I'd be smart enough to realize that's mostly because the Cardinals mash at home while the Astros hitting struggled at home.
3. If something appears to be a pitchers park any given year it's because, in all likelihood, many pitchers for that team happened to have great years.
4. I'd look at the home/away splits and notice Carpenter was 12-1 with 2.90 ERA and .219 BA Against on the road, as opposed to 9-4 at home with 2.77 ERA and .240 BA Against. So, he had a higher ERA at home, but lower average against, but more wins on the road, but Busch is a better pitcher's park...
5. Then I'd get confused with all the contradicting numbers, and realize park factor is pretty much nothing more than an indication of how a particular home team hits and pitches at home, in any given year.
<< <i>
<< <i> After Clemems helped the Astros clinch a tie yesterday, I think Clemens should win the Cy Young, especially after Willis and Carpenter faltered so badly down the stretch. >>
I won't argue against Clemens getting it, but the last 4 starts when Carps got lit up we had already wrapped up the division. One thing I would like to to point out is that there has been no better big time pitcher then Carpenter this season. Look at what he did to the other Cy Young candidates when matched up head to head and I think that's why he should get it but it wouldn't upset to see Clemens do it.
9/3 Carps- 9 inn 2 ER
Clemens - 5 inn 2 ER
8/2 Carps- 9 inn 1 ER
Willis - 5 inn 1 ER
7/17 Carps - 9 inn 0 ER
Clemens - 7 inn ER
He always pitched well when against other teams aces and he closed out the games. >>
Good points -- I changed by mind -- give it to Carps.
Clemens can wallow in his family room with the other seven Cy Youngs (and one MVP) on the mantel!!
Hold on a minute.
Wouldn't it be true to say other very important factors determine a pitcher's ERA? In fact, don't very important factors contribute to every statistic?
I think you're just attempting to rule it out because it's the cool fantasy-baseball-Rob-Neyer-stathead thing to do these days, and it's one of the more ridiculous arguments I've ever heard to say "wins don't even come into the equation" when considering who is the best pitcher any given year. I'm honestly sorry to revert to the aforementioned p**ing match here, but I just couldn't let that statement slide by. You're welcome to refute or defend or soften that position, but it's clear you just don't get it.
And regarding the remark about "pitching to the score" and your comment - I've never seen a study to show otherwise - Well I'll admit, I've never seen a study either...just seen a lot of actual games that would prove you wrong.
<< <i>So Clemens and his 30 extra innings of crummy relief would bring 'his' ERA up to 2.76. So even with adding really bad relief pitching to Clemens (to equal out the IP of Carpenter), Clemens still has more value than the 2.83 ERA of Carpenter. If you add in the typical 4.50 ERA in those relief innings, then Clemens' new total would be a 2.51 ERA value.
>>
I like this. This gives an appropriate value to the additional innings Carpenter has thrown. It truly narrows the gap between to the two pitchers to the point where I can accept either as a winner.
Comparing a 2.83 to a 2.51 ERA is close enough to call it a tossup. If I were deciding who I wanted to start a game it would depend on my bullpen health and potentially the opposing pitcher.
I completely agree with your original sentiment that the majority of voters are sheep who will look simply at the W-L record.
In 1996 he was 10-13 with a 3.63 ERA with 263 Innings pitched...he must have forgotten how to pitch to the score that year.
In 2001 he was 20-3 with a 3.51 ERA with 220 Innings pitched...boy he must have remembered how to pitch to the score that year, and he got 20 wins as a result in 43 LESS INNINGS PITCHED!! Good luck!
So how can the same man pitch with virtually the same effectiveness have ten more wins one year, with 43 less innngs pitched to boot?
Is it skill at work? We know it is the same man, and by looking at his numbers we know he pitched basically the same. So what changed him from 10 to 20 wins? Pitching to the score?? Then why didn't he do that all the time? He did do it again, in 2004.
Clemens 2004 18-4, 2.98 ERA in 214 IP. I geuss Rog knew how to pitch to the score last year, or maybe because they scored more runs for him.
Clemens 2005 13-8 1.87 ERA in 211 IP. So what happened now? Is somebody stupid enough to say that he pitched better last year by virtue of his won/loss record? Did he somehow forget how to pitch to the score like he 'knew' how to last year? Time and Time again when you examine all the pitchers throughout history you will see how faulty juding a pitcher based on wins is! So unless Clemens once knew how to pitch to the score, then forgot, then remembered, forgot, remembered, and then forgot, then it is quite obvious that other factors are playing a major role in determining his won/loss record...factors that he has no control over, thus making it stupid to judge him by the stat of "WINS". Run support is the major factor at work, plain and simple. Pitcher Skill too. defense, bullpen, and luck the others.
dgsbaseball, it takes enough writng to fill books to go over all that stuff you are incorrect about. I could point you the way, but you seem to be in the Carl Everett side where he still insists dinosaurs never existed, so it may be a lost cause. It looks like I may have made an error on the assumption of Houston being a better pitchers park. You know what they say about assuming.
frolico, hardly anyone completes games now. 1) the offense is very high, thus more pitches thrown and batters faced, and 2)Philosophy of pitcher usage is different too.
You are exactly right about the Yankees bailing Clemens out during that win streak, and that is exactly why wins are such a faulty stat, they are very team dependent. It is silly to determine the effectiveness of a pitcher based on his win total when he has little control over many of the factors. There are soo many things that determine.
dgsbaseball, the extra IP added to Clemens is a simplified way of showing the value of more/less IP. It simply shows the value given to a team. Could the relievers have given up 1,000 runs? No. Does it happen? No. What usually happens? Well, take the time and look at the MILLIONS of play by play analysis like HAS been done, and you will see what typically happens. Then you can judge quite easily on what would typically happen to a neutral team. That is FAAAARRR more reliable than what your biased eyes are looking at. I've seen plenty of ball myself too, and I played it quite well too(and still can), so no need to go that route.
In basketball, before they started keeping steals as a stat, every fan swore that Jerry West averaged ten steals a game. You couldn't convince them otherwise. Well, when the stat was kept it was more in the three range, like the leaders typically have. Are your eyes more reliable(certainly not more than mine), or is the millions of play by play analysis of what really happended more reliable? Add some sound logic and tested studies with the analysis, and presto you get 99% of the way there.
dgs, you need to re-think some of your premises, my assumption on Minute Maid aside.
P.S. I never said that winning doesn't matter. I said determining the value and ability of a pitcher based on the stat of "Wins" is what is faulty. I'm dumbfounded that even the biggest of simpletons doesn't see the MAJOR pitfalls in WINS as a stat to determine how good a SP is. Just look at the countless examples throughout history, as it is quite obvious you are oblivious to.
I think this pretty much sums up why we'll never agree, and I know you'll never relent. You use stats, as in this case, to extrapolate things that DIDN'T HAPPEN, as though 162 games of baseball were some theoretical proof that clearly doesn't provide you with enough factual information to prove your point. And to make your point, you're actually inventing missing data, because you're obviously smart enough to know what would've happened, so then on-paper you can outsmart all us halfwits and not pick Rick Helling for your fantasy baseball league or whatever the hell your point is now.
I just like watching baseball. Have for a long time, and always will. Quite frankly I'm just sick of all this fantasy baseball crap, the fact that the Red Sox (or rather I, through my season tickets) put Bill James on the payroll, and all the general ranting and raving by people like you who insist that you are smarter than the game, smarter than everyone who ever played the game, and smarter than everyone who doesn't know what DIP% stat is.
The way you assert yourself is arrogant, and you often go to absurd extremes to prove a point. For example, had you asked about pitching to score, I would've quoted you Curt Schilling talking about it on the radio a few months ago, explaining how he felt differently being the closer and about different game situations and whatnot.... You, on the other hand, immediately respond with sarcasm, backed up by your expert analysis of Roger Clemens' record over the last 8 years ago to prove he didn't forget how to pitch, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything at this point...
And again and again..
Me: commenting about what I see, what I hear from players, what I've come to understand from the game
You: reading spreadsheets, calculating stats nobody cares about or understands, and praying at the alter of sabermetric goo goo every evening.
Me: Carpenter pitched more innings, so I'd factor that in when figuring who might've been a better starter over the course of the season.
You: Yeah, but if Clemens had pitched those extra innings than he would've been the same so it doesn't count.
Me: The sky is blue.
You: Yeah, but if it were green then it'd be green and you'd be blue in the face because it'd be a green sky.
Me: There are seven days in the week.
You: Yeah, but if they added another then there'd be eight. Then what? What would you think then? Would you just forget there are eight?
Well pinchy, you know what they say...
If my aunt had a d***, then she'd be my uncle...But it just ain't the way it is.
If, for instance, Clemens DOES win the Cy Young this year, then what does that say about the hundreds of voters (an ignorant bunch who use bad criteria to make decisions) that now share your opinion? I don't think "well they obviously get it right sometimes" is much of a response, since this whole thread was started with the explicit proclamation:
"We know what is going to happen. Roger Clemens will finsih third in the NL Cy Young race on virtue of his won loss record, as compared to that of Carpenter and Willis. This will be another example of ignorance by sportswriters on what constitutes 'the best'. "
Just curious how you're going to spin that one.
"Even a broken clock is correct twice a day and dgbaseball is a dummy" would be my recommendation.
<< <i>you're actually inventing missing data >>
And we made them sterile
The funniest thing about anti-stat guys is that they use stats to judge players. They just use the wrong ones all the time. THen they don't understand the right ones so they simply dismiss them.
As for the Roger Clemens pitching to the score, you made a comment that your eyes tell you different, and that people pitch to the score and basically earn their wins on solely their merit. So I show you the yo-yo type results of Clemens win/loss, with LESS IP, MORE WINS, and similar ERA. You have no answer for it. If pitching to the score existed, then I guess it gets forgotten and remembered on a semi-yearly basis. You have no answer for it, so you spout off days of the week stupid stuff to show your ignorance. You can't let yourself agree that WINS is such a crummy stat as evident not only by Clemens, but many others throughout history, and that LARGE factors beyond the pitchers control are very much at work(which is the jist of my initial post). So how on earth can you judge a pitcher based on what other people are doing? You can't if you want to do it right.
A long time ago some of the 'experts' thought the world was flat. A long time ago almost everyone believed that a guy named Atlas was the reason earth was being held up. One can go on and on in every facet of life, study etc.., even in the last fifty years where long time thoughts and beliefs aren't quite accurate. Studying baseball isn't any different. Commonly held beliefes die hard, and you like many other fans hold dearly onto those beliefs.
P.S. Having the ability to play MLB doesn't equate to the ability to analyze and judge it correctly.
I geuss I will go back to watching baseball and judge players on how pretty their swing is, or say that Bo Jackson was better than Mike Piazza because his tools were vastly superior. In fact, I will say right now that Bo Jackson was better than piazza because he had far better tools, and I want to see you how you dispute that.
I would vote for Clemens this year, but I bet he doesn't get it because of his won lost record and the fact that he has won the award so many times.
Wins are important, but in Santana's case, this year he really got no run support at all. He was dominant in the things he had controll over; strikeouts, where he led the majors. ERA, I think he was virtually tied for the lead in the AL. I don't have the numbers (sorry to the stat gods) but I'll bet his hits/walks per 9 innings was at or near the top. I watched nearly every telivised game he pitched and he was amazing both last year and this year. I don't believe he will win the Cy Young Award this year but I think he should.
I don't see much point in arguing over innings pitched, it's out of the pitchers controll, especially in the National League. As long as the pitcher has the required number of innings he's done enough.
The MVP also got mentioned. BOTH of these awards are kind of screwed up. Just take a look at another Twin......Kirby Puckett. Despite him having 7 seasons of 195 hits or more, good power numbers, several gold gloves and leading his team to two World Championships, he never was voted the MVP. He was BY FAR the best all around player in the league for several years, and his leadership off the field, keeping everyone loose in the clubhouse helped the Twins too.
It's fun debating these awards. The bottom line is they don't always go to the "right" player.
JoeBanzai
<< <i>Bo Jackson was better than Mike Piazza >>
I would think a majority of people agree with that.
They do get it right sometimes, but the times they miss soo badly are just terrible, and really show how ignorant they are. Clemens isn't a lock even in my book. I never even looked at OB% or SLG% against, or defense, etc....so Carpenter could close the gap on true merit.
Remember, my post was about getting dismissed based on WON/LOSS record, as has been the case soo many times in Cy Young voting. I already knew about IP being a factor, and you brought it up as if I didn't know that mattered. Obviously it does, and I showed you how. But scan through Cy Young votes and you see the ignorant bias towards WINS for giving the award.
Heck, back in college my girlfriend told her best friend that I had gotten a "WIN" today pitching. Her friends response, who knows nothing about baseball was, "Why would they award the win to just one guy??" That one statement was smarter than 80% of the crap I hear from so called rabid fans.
Hopefully the masses enjoyed this as well. And hopefully, assuming they just read what's been written, everyone will agree that you are nothing more than an excessively, massively and amusingly arrogant stat weenie.
p.s. Personally, my money and opinion is on Dontrelle Willis to win. Seriously. But please, don't try to prove me wrong. Let me have that one in peace.
Actually stat weenies typically have nothing to do with collecting, and they actually disdain fantasy baseball.
Have a good one, and enjoy the Sox/Sox series. And don't give too much credit to Clement if 'he' wins Six to Five. Spread that credit around where it belongs, and not just in the W column for the SP.