PDA

View Full Version : And this is why some people don't take baseball stats seriously


doublem23
10-08-2010, 02:33 PM
According to Bill James' Game Score metric, Tim Lincecum's 2-hit shutout last night was "more dominant" than Roy Halladay's no-hitter or Don Larsen's perfect game.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101008&content_id=15505484&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

asindc
10-08-2010, 02:44 PM
... and this is why I often laugh at Bill James.

WhiteSox5187
10-08-2010, 02:54 PM
... and this is why I often laugh at Bill James.

Exactly. Not to take anything away from Lincecum, but no one reaches base > no one gets a hit > two people get a hit. Strikeouts are nice, but they are not the end all be all of pitching stats.

downstairs
10-08-2010, 03:04 PM
Exactly. Not to take anything away from Lincecum, but no one reaches base > no one gets a hit > two people get a hit. Strikeouts are nice, but they are not the end all be all of pitching stats.

Let me play devil's advocate here. Strikeouts are 100% on the pitcher. No defense, no luck, no bad/good bounces.

While I'm no Cub fan, Kerry Wood's 20 K performance was absolutely more dominating than many no-hitters*, from a perspective of the pitcher alone.

Take Mark Buehrle's perfect game... he had more help from others (Wise, Alexeeeeeiiiii Yes!) than, say, the pitchers who've thrown one-hit 20 K games.

*Andy Hawkins, 1990?

Nellie_Fox
10-08-2010, 03:05 PM
Let me play devil's advocate here. Strikeouts are 100% on the pitcher. No defense, no luck, no bad/good bounces.

While I'm no Cub fan, Kerry Wood's 20 K performance was absolutely more dominating than many no-hitters, from a perspective of the pitcher alone.

Take Mark Buehrle's perfect game... he had more help from others (Wise, Alexeeeeeiiiii Yes!) than, say, the pitchers who've thrown one-hit 20 K games.Oh, jeez, don't start this argument again.

soxfanatlanta
10-08-2010, 03:11 PM
The Reds are a very good hitting team who were completely shut down, the Braves struggle to score runs on a good night.

This should not even be open for discussion.

downstairs
10-08-2010, 03:17 PM
Oh, jeez, don't start this argument again.

Why not? Its a valid discussion on what "dominating" really means. Baseball is a nuanced game, where stats can be interpreted a bunch of different ways.

Are you saying that Andy Hawkins 1990 no-hitter loss is more dominating than the few 20 K games that have been pitched?

Nellie_Fox
10-08-2010, 03:19 PM
Why not? Its a valid discussion on what "dominating" really means. Baseball is a nuanced game, where stats can be interpreted a bunch of different ways.
Because we've already done the "Wood's 20 K game was better than Buehrle's perfecto" argument to death.

DumpJerry
10-08-2010, 03:29 PM
Let me play devil's advocate here. Strikeouts are 100% on the pitcher. No defense, no luck, no bad/good bounces.
You forgot questionable calls by the Ump. And, also, they are not 100% "on the pitcher." You can have a crap guy at bat not swinging at pitches that are very hittable and would have stood there whether the Pitcher was Randy Johnson or Mike Johnson the Beer Vendor.

g0g0
10-08-2010, 03:37 PM
I'm not buying it. I'm sure if you asked both of them which they'd rather have - a 2-hitter or a no hitter you'd get the same answer. *HINT* it's not the 2-hitter.

TDog
10-08-2010, 03:50 PM
There is no way Lincecum's performance was as dominant than Halliday's, and I type this as someone who has become a Lincecum fan. If Lincecum hadn't given up a hit after the leadoff double, you could argue that Lincecum was more dominant after the first. But he still gave up the leadoff double.

You also could consider that Halliday was pitching to a team with a stronger offense in a park more conducive to hitting -- although in a smaller park, you wouldn't have had the outfielders playing to cut off the gaps in Triples Alley. Maybe those two doubles are caught by the centerfielder. And maybe McCann's flyout would have been a home run.

The bottom line is that Halliday pitched a no-hitter, a dominant no-hitter by no-hitter standards. Lincecum pitched a two-hitter where he approached no-hitter dominance. If they had been going against each other (as they might next week), maybe the game goes extra innings, and the discussion has more relevance.

Lincecum pitched an awesome shutout. But Halliday pitched an awesome no-hitter.

thomas35forever
10-08-2010, 03:54 PM
Only two no-hitters in postseason history. One of them happened on Wednesday. End of story.

Nellie_Fox
10-08-2010, 03:59 PM
Only two no-hitters in postseason history. One of them happened on Wednesday. End of story.Personally, I don't think "postseason" stats and World Series stats should be all lumped together. World Series stats should still be their own category, just like Super Bowl records are different than playoff records.

Ex-Chicagoan
10-08-2010, 04:02 PM
I love stats. I'd vote for Halladay without even thinking about it.

DumpJerry
10-08-2010, 04:04 PM
Personally, I don't think "postseason" stats and World Series stats should be all lumped together. World Series stats should still be their own category, just like Super Bowl records are different than playoff records.
:tool
Well, you see, the people in our Marketing Department tell me to make it look like the LDS and WS are the same thing. We have a very, very good marketing department.

GAsoxfan
10-08-2010, 04:18 PM
I don't agree that Lincecum's game was more dominant than Halladay's, but I do agree with the thought that a non no-hitter can be more dominating than a no-hitter. It just wasn't in this case.

asindc
10-08-2010, 04:33 PM
I don't agree that Lincecum's game was more dominant than Halladay's, but I do agree with the thought that a non no-hitter can be more dominating than a no-hitter. It just wasn't in this case.

I think the point here (at least IMO) is that James let the numbers tell him something his eyes probably did not.

SI1020
10-08-2010, 05:21 PM
I think the point here (at least IMO) is that James let the numbers tell him something his eyes probably did not. As an older fan that does his best to keep up with all the newer stats that is one big problem that is often evident. It causes some fans to over or under value certain players just because a particular "metric" tells them to do so. Even more maddening, when often times the fan has never seen a particular player in a game and is passing judgement based on these stats.

TDog
10-08-2010, 05:41 PM
Personally, I don't think "postseason" stats and World Series stats should be all lumped together. World Series stats should still be their own category, just like Super Bowl records are different than playoff records.

I agree with this. It's silly to compare the postseason home run totals of Mantle and Ruth with those of Manny Ramirez. I don't think an NLDS no-hitter is on the same level as a World Series no-hitter, let alone a World Series perfect game.

happydude
10-08-2010, 06:09 PM
I'd have to agree with Downstairs. A distinction can be made between what's a superior performance and what's a more "dominating" performance. Halladay was closer to perfection than Lincecum so, in my view, his performance was clearly superior. However, racking up a ton of strikeouts always looks better than simply inducing guys to hit the ball at fielders; it is emphatic and leaves no room for discussion about the bad luck of the direction of a hard hit ball or the skill of the defense or any of that.

To be fair to Halladay, though, I watched his gem and I only recollect one hard hit ball and that was by a Reds pitcher. Also, unlike many no hitters, there weren't any great defensive plays (the final out came closest) made that could be said to have preserved the no hitter. He was superb.

slavko
10-08-2010, 07:59 PM
I looked on baseball-reference.com and couldn't find DOMINATING. Is that measurable or in the mind of the beholder?

Daver
10-08-2010, 08:11 PM
I looked on baseball-reference.com and couldn't find DOMINATING. Is that measurable or in the mind of the beholder?

You have to go to Baseball Prospectus and look under "the preposterous crap we make up to make us look like we know more than you do."

If you can't find it there look under "stats we make up out of thin air that make speculation fact."

And you can also check under "how dare you question our methods, you must be too stupid to understand what you are looking at."

Lip Man 1
10-08-2010, 10:08 PM
:D::D::D:

Well played sir.

Lip

Daver
10-08-2010, 10:19 PM
:D::D::D:

Well played sir.

Lip

I don't qualify as a sir.

TommyJohn
10-08-2010, 10:32 PM
Because we've already done the "Wood's 20 K game was better than Buehrle's perfecto" argument to death.Who could've guessed that Dave Kaplan being a total ******** would've had such an impact?

Nellie_Fox
10-09-2010, 12:56 AM
You have to go to Baseball Prospectus and look under "the preposterous crap we make up to make us look like we know more than you do."

If you can't find it there look under "stats we make up out of thin air that make speculation fact."

And you can also check under "how dare you question our methods, you must be too stupid to understand what you are looking at."Love it.

Bob Roarman
10-09-2010, 07:56 AM
... and this is why I often laugh at Bill James.

Oh, jeez, don't start this argument again.

I think the point here (at least IMO) is that James let the numbers tell him something his eyes probably did not.

You have to go to Baseball Prospectus and look under "the preposterous crap we make up to make us look like we know more than you do."

If you can't find it there look under "stats we make up out of thin air that make speculation fact."

And you can also check under "how dare you question our methods, you must be too stupid to understand what you are looking at."

How about we play another round of "Let's attribute peculiar consequences of a man's innovative theoretical insight directly to that person in order to discredit him and at the same time not have to examine the subtler points of said insight or how it might reshape our awfully conventional beliefs because if we did there's the potential that we might be... *GASP*.... wrong in believing in them. And being proven wrong= BAD!!"

It's a classic game that's been around since the beginning of time. Fun for the whole family.

southside rocks
10-09-2010, 08:16 AM
You forgot questionable calls by the Ump. And, also, they are not 100% "on the pitcher." You can have a crap guy at bat not swinging at pitches that are very hittable and would have stood there whether the Pitcher was Randy Johnson or Mike Johnson the Beer Vendor.

I'm not a stats person, but I think the ump/strike zone factor is a huge reason why it can't be said that strikeouts are 'all the pitcher.' You'd have to make sure that the exact same strike zone was used in each game, and we all know that ain't happening. And that doesn't even take into account blown calls, bad calls, and 'oops I missed the last one so I'll give him this one' calls.

Stats assume that everything happens in a vacuum. :rolleyes:

But maybe Tim Lincecum (who is one of my favorite pitchers, actually) will get into the "More Dominant" wing of the HOF based on stats.

TommyJohn
10-09-2010, 09:36 AM
Love it.

You have to go to Baseball Prospectus and look under "the preposterous crap we make up to make us look like we know more than you do."

If you can't find it there look under "stats we make up out of thin air that make speculation fact."

And you can also check under "how dare you question our methods, you must be too stupid to understand what you are looking at."You guys have to be careful not to offend the Mensa members around here.

happydude
10-09-2010, 11:36 AM
I'm not a stats person, but I think the ump/strike zone factor is a huge reason why it can't be said that strikeouts are 'all the pitcher.' You'd have to make sure that the exact same strike zone was used in each game, and we all know that ain't happening. And that doesn't even take into account blown calls, bad calls, and 'oops I missed the last one so I'll give him this one' calls.

Stats assume that everything happens in a vacuum. :rolleyes:

But maybe Tim Lincecum (who is one of my favorite pitchers, actually) will get into the "More Dominant" wing of the HOF based on stats.

This is definitely true in general. In this specific game, however, umpiring appears to have been much less of a factor than your proposition suggests. Lincecum forced 31 swinging strikes; that's the highest number of swinging strikes of any pitcher in any start this season. I believe that at one point in the game he recorded 5 swinging strikeouts in a row; if that's accurate, that's pretty damned dominant.

TDog
10-09-2010, 02:08 PM
This is definitely true in general. In this specific game, however, umpiring appears to have been much less of a factor than your proposition suggests. Lincecum forced 31 swinging strikes; that's the highest number of swinging strikes of any pitcher in any start this season. I believe that at one point in the game he recorded 5 swinging strikeouts in a row; if that's accurate, that's pretty damned dominant.

Watching the game, I thought the Braves had more than 30 swinging strikes, excluding foul balls and balls put into play, which count as strikes in the pitchcount breakdown. After the game, the media reporting the game said it was 33. Peter Gammons on the radio Friday morning said he considered 33 an astoundingly high number.

Detractors might say the Braves swung at a lot of bad pitches, and indeed they swung at a lot of pitches out of the strikezone. But the hitters were saying postgame they believed they were strikes when they started their swings.

And the called strikes didn't seem borderline.

downstairs
10-09-2010, 05:00 PM
Exactly. Not to take anything away from Lincecum, but no one reaches base > no one gets a hit > two people get a hit. Strikeouts are nice, but they are not the end all be all of pitching stats.

Another thing... you're now saying that total baserunners and hits are the single most important stat, and that a dominant performance in any other category cannot overcome your performance in these two stats.

If someone pitched 26 straight strikeouts and then gave up a bloop hit, is that less dominant than perfect games?

TDog
10-09-2010, 05:28 PM
Another thing... you're now saying that total baserunners and hits are the single most important stat, and that a dominant performance in any other category cannot overcome your performance in these two stats.

If someone pitched 26 straight strikeouts and then gave up a bloop hit, is that less dominant than perfect games?

If "dominant" were an official stat, that would be a relevant question. Strike out 26, give up a bloop hit a stolen base a wild pitch and a passed ball, and if your team doesn't score, you are a loser.

Virgil Trucks was perhaps the most dominant pitcher of 1952 during his three complete-game shutouts (a redundancy, by the way). One of his shutouts was a one-hitter in which he struck out 10. His other two shutouts were no-hitters. His Tigers also lost a 1-0 game in 12 innings, but Trucks only pitched the first nine. It doesn't count as a shutout if your team loses in extra innings, no matter how dominant you were. (He only struck out nine, anyway.) In addition to his 29 starts, Trucks had six relief outings, giving up only one run.

Too bad he finished the season 5-19 with an ERA of 3.97. If Walt Dropo hadn't homered in the bottom of the eighth against the Red Sox, his old teammates, on September 11, Trucks would have been a 20-game loser.

In his five wins, he had an ERA of 0.21. In his 19 losses, he had an ERA of 6.24. Trucks might have led the league in dominant starts in 1952, but that wasn't a stat then.

And it isn't a stat now.

Bob Roarman
10-09-2010, 05:35 PM
Very rarely does an exception like this happen, especially on back to back days, but there it is, that's why the game is great. Lincecum took down over half the batters faced with strike outs allowing 3 base runners while Halladay took down less than a third of the total batters he faced with strike outs and allowed one base runner. The less times the ball is put in play, the better it is for your team. I don't see how there can be an argument against that, and it doesn't take away anything from what Halladay did. It seems like there can be no gray areas in topics like these for some people. It doesn't mean at all that the excitement and emotion of watching a game like Halladay has to be null and void, both performances exist independently from each other.

Lip Man 1
10-09-2010, 05:53 PM
Forgive me for not understanding but some segments talk about strikeouts as the 'be all / end all' for pitchers yet then these same folks talk about pitch counts and overusing pitchers. :?:

Can't have it both ways people.

You need at least three pitches for a strikeout, you only need one pitch for say a ground out.

Like Crash Davis said, "strike outs are fascists, throw more ground balls, they're democratic."

Lip

TDog
10-09-2010, 06:52 PM
Forgive me for not understanding but some segments talk about strikeouts as the 'be all / end all' for pitchers yet then these same folks talk about pitch counts and overusing pitchers. :?:

Can't have it both ways people.

You need at least three pitches for a strikeout, you only need one pitch for say a ground out.

Like Crash Davis said, "strike outs are fascists, throw more ground balls, they're democratic."

Lip

You would think the strikeout people would ignore pitch counts or the pitch-count people would disdain strikeouts. They seem to disdain wins and don't care about innings pitched, although their favorite pitchers would get more wins if they could pitch more innings effectively.

I think Joe Horlen had 22 groundouts in his 1967 no-hitter. That was considered dominant. Tommy John said in an interview after pitching an impressive win that when he came over to the White Sox, they gave you a new suit if you got 20 or more groundouts in a game, that being a big deal at the time. He added, "those people aren't around anymore."

Lip Man 1
10-09-2010, 10:59 PM
That was Eddie Stanky! I don't remember if it was Gary or Joe who told me that Stanky had to stop doing that at midseason. He couldn't afford to buy any more suits.

It also had to be a complete game pitched by the way to qualify.

Lip

NardiWasHere
10-10-2010, 09:13 PM
This is so stupid.

A No-hitter is less impressive than a Two-Hitter and a 13-12 pitcher is Cy Young.

I really hate stat-guys about 60% of the time.

FielderJones
10-10-2010, 09:22 PM
I really hate stat-guys about 60% of the time.

http://geekyclown.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/frink.gif
"Flavin!"

Rdy2PlayBall
10-10-2010, 09:53 PM
What's more impressive... or "dominating"

A prefect game, only to be ruined by 1 error...
or...
A perfect game, saved only because of a robbed homerun?

Pablo_Honey
10-10-2010, 10:34 PM
Eh, as much as I love statistical analysis, this is a really silly argument. Strikeouts are nice but Halladay let only one guy on base with a walk while Lincecum let three on, two of them via doubles. Unless Lincecum struck out 20+, the comparison isn't close and even with that many strikeouts, I'm not sure if it would be considered a clearly more dominating performance. I mean, it's not like Halladay didn't strike anybody out and purely relied on his defense.

voodoochile
10-10-2010, 11:23 PM
The Simpsons absolutely nailed this argument tonight...

Oblong
10-11-2010, 09:41 AM
I think it's worth noting that Bill James didn't come out and say that Halladay's outing wasn't as impressive as Lincecum's. The author of that article used a system that James developed to draw that conclusion. I bet James would be the first one to say that systems are not 100% fool proof and that this is an example why.

It's not a terribly complicated concept. You start with 50 add and subtract for certain events, like outs recorded, strikeouts, walks, runs, earned runs, etc. Lincecum got a 96, Halladay got a 94. That's insignifigant for comparing two single games.

And it's also not meant to compare single games but rather track trends.

Oblong
10-11-2010, 09:46 AM
Forgive me for not understanding but some segments talk about strikeouts as the 'be all / end all' for pitchers yet then these same folks talk about pitch counts and overusing pitchers. :?:

Can't have it both ways people.

You need at least three pitches for a strikeout, you only need one pitch for say a ground out.

Like Crash Davis said, "strike outs are fascists, throw more ground balls, they're democratic."

Lip

Once a hitter hits the ball, it's out of the pitcher's hands what happens. A ground ball pitcher can be effective, provided he has a good infield defense. But without a good infield defense, then that grounder becomes a base hit instead of an out. The pitcher didn't do anything better or worse but now he's charged with a base runner.

You want a classic example of a guy living and dying by putting balls in play? Armando Galarraga's 2008 season. He had a good W-L/ERA split but the trends were very obvious that he wasn't as good as that indicated. And we found out.

SI1020
10-11-2010, 09:52 AM
The less times the ball is put in play, the better it is for your team. I don't see how there can be an argument against that, and it doesn't take away anything from what Halladay did. I will. I don't want my fielders to be potted plants out there. They need to make some plays too. I will admit that power pitchers are my favorite and I like flame throwers coming out of the bullpen in the late innings. I do say that the devotion many stat heads have to the strikeout is almost comical. It is not the be all and end all of pitching.

Oblong
10-11-2010, 10:34 AM
I will. I don't want my fielders to be potted plants out there. They need to make some plays too. I will admit that power pitchers are my favorite and I like flame throwers coming out of the bullpen in the late innings. I do say that the devotion many stat heads have to the strikeout is almost comical. It is not the be all and end all of pitching.

What pitchers have had a good career with a below average K/9 rate?

Lip Man 1
10-11-2010, 12:07 PM
Oblong:

I understand what you posted but no one has touched on or discussed my point. Some say strike outs are very important but those same folks then talk about pitch counts etc.

That perspective is contradictory and doesn't make sense when discussing starting pitchers.

Look up the box score of when the Sox Joe Cowley set the record for most consecutive strike outs to start a game in 1986 (if memory serves) at Texas.

He lasted less than five innings.

Lip

SI1020
10-11-2010, 12:26 PM
What pitchers have had a good career with a below average K/9 rate? I have a feeling that no matter what I say it will have little effect. Nevertheless I shall try. In the early years of MLB, when batting averages and eras were quite low there was no such thing as a pitcher averaging over 1k per inning over any length of time. If you look up the top 100 career leaders for K's per 9 innings you will find exactly 7 in the HOF. Here are the active leaders for K's per innnings among those who have pitched a minimum of 1000 innings.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/strikeouts_per_nine_active.shtml

I'm not going to list the dozens of pitchers in the HOF that I don't consider to be strikeout pitchers but Warren Spahn, Robin Roberts, Bob Lemon, Whitey Ford, and Catfish Hunter are just a few names that come to mind. In the distant past, and in today's game you don't have to have a high K ratio to be an excellent pitcher in MLB.

Ranger
10-11-2010, 12:55 PM
You have to go to Baseball Prospectus and look under "the preposterous crap we make up to make us look like we know more than you do."

If you can't find it there look under "stats we make up out of thin air that make speculation fact."

And you can also check under "how dare you question our methods, you must be too stupid to understand what you are looking at."

That's actually kind of funny.

It reminds me of a Deadspin writer that said, "algorithm (that's a high-falutin' word that means what follows must be absolute truth)."

Ranger
10-11-2010, 01:08 PM
I have a feeling that no matter what I say it will have little effect. Nevertheless I shall try. In the early years of MLB, when batting averages and eras were quite low there was no such thing as a pitcher averaging over 1k per inning over any length of time. If you look up the top 100 career leaders for K's per 9 innings you will find exactly 7 in the HOF. Here are the active leaders for K's per innnings among those who have pitched a minimum of 1000 innings.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/strikeouts_per_nine_active.shtml

I'm not going to list the dozens of pitchers in the HOF that I don't consider to be strikeout pitchers but Warren Spahn, Robin Roberts, Bob Lemon, Whitey Ford, and Catfish Hunter are just a few names that come to mind. In the distant past, and in today's game you don't have to have a high K ratio to be an excellent pitcher in MLB.

100% correct. Let's take Mariano Rivera, for example. Though he is not a starter, would anyone ever say he is not a dominant pitcher because hitters make contact? Of course not, because hitters hardly ever make GOOD contact? When the outfield plays shallow just because you're on the mound, that means they have extreme confidence that anything hit to the outfield is gonna be a blooper or popup. And they're confident of that because they know nobody's gonna drive any of your pitches.

Is that less dominant than a guy that strikes out the side? Absolutely not. Getting guys to ground out weakly or pop up is as dominant as a strikeout because you're getting the hitter to do exactly what you want him to do.

TDog
10-11-2010, 01:35 PM
I... I'm not going to list the dozens of pitchers in the HOF that I don't consider to be strikeout pitchers but Warren Spahn, Robin Roberts, Bob Lemon, Whitey Ford, and Catfish Hunter are just a few names that come to mind. In the distant past, and in today's game you don't have to have a high K ratio to be an excellent pitcher in MLB.

Warren Spahn did led the National League in strikeouts four straight seasons, 1959-1952, although he never averaged 6 strikeouts per inning while leading the league.

Ratios and averages are not very important -- not bottom line important anyway. Lip is right. Warren Spahn didn't work on a pitch count. But he didn't seem to tire at the end of games. While he was leading the league in strikeouts he only once pitched fewer than 25 complete games in his 154 game season, and in that year he pitched 19.

Granted, the list of pitchers who are Warren Spahn good is short indeed. But if you pitch six innings and get 10 strikeouts and your opponent pitches nine innings and gets five strikeouts but allows no runs, he has outpitched you by any but the silliest of criteria.

If you're limiting the number of pitches a pitcher can throw in a game, you want him inducing broken bat ground balls. Even if you're not counting pitches, you don't want your pitcher to tire because he has struck out so many hitters. The bottom line is wins, not quality starts. You want a starting pitcher to pitch deep enough and well enough the game to get the win. I don't know if Jonathan Sanchez was tired from striking out 11 when he came out of the Giants-Braves game Sunday, but the Giants might have won a cleaner game if they hadn't gone to the bullpen until the ninth.

If you watch Class A or Rookie League baseball, you might see pitchers who throw very hard and get a lot of strikeouts, sometimes averaging 2 per inning. It's not uncommon for them to have ERAs of like 8, which means they give up on average almost one earned run every inning. They have trouble getting hitters out except by striking them out. Billy Koch seemed to have that problem when he came over to the White Sox, although relief pitchers really don't fit into this argument. They only face a few hitters.

Pitching in the major leagues requires getting hitters out in ways other than striking them out.

SI1020
10-11-2010, 01:49 PM
Warren Spahn did led the National League in strikeouts four straight seasons, 1959-1952, although he never averaged 6 strikeouts per inning while leading the league.
You're right to course, except it was 1949-52. Typo, no big deal. K/9 ratios have fluctuated wildly over the years. Today they are on the high side and all the rage among some fans. I would consider very few pitchers in the late 40's early 50's as strikeout pitchers. Even a noted fireballer like Bob Feller lead the league with 164 K's in 1948. Warren Spahn was a control pitcher extraordinaire. The following quote is attributed to him. "Hitting is timing. Pitching is upsetting timing." Also this one. "A sore arm is like a headache or a toothache. It can make you feel bad, but if you just forget about it and do what you have to do, it will go away. If you really like to pitch and you want to pitch, that's what you'll do." Times sure do change.

Oblong
10-11-2010, 02:30 PM
uh Ranger.... Mariano River averaged 8.2 K/9 for his career. The average during his career has been 6-7. So I'm not sure what exactly bringing him up is supposed to do to counter my argument. Bob Lemon, yeah averaged 3-4 K/9 in his career. Guess what the average was? 3-4.

Lip, what is one game supposed to prove?

Lip Man 1
10-11-2010, 04:57 PM
Oblong:

Mearly an example. To me strikeout pitchers are fine but then don't complain (now saying you specifically by the way just in general terms) about pitch counts and overuse.
One or the other gang, ya can't have both.

Lip

Craig Grebeck
10-11-2010, 05:59 PM
Oblong:

Mearly an example. To me strikeout pitchers are fine but then don't complain (now saying you specifically by the way just in general terms) about pitch counts and overuse.

One or the other gang, ya can't have both.

Lip

You really are going to great lengths to create arguments to dispute. Your counter is based on a general assumption that is quite inaccurate, to say the least.

Daver
10-11-2010, 06:16 PM
You really are going to great lengths to create arguments to dispute. Your counter is based on a general assumption that is quite inaccurate, to say the least.

Inaccurate how, exactly?

Taliesinrk
10-11-2010, 06:26 PM
inaccurate how, exactly?

... And they're off.....

Bob Roarman
10-11-2010, 06:28 PM
I will. I don't want my fielders to be potted plants out there. They need to make some plays too. I will admit that power pitchers are my favorite and I like flame throwers coming out of the bullpen in the late innings. I do say that the devotion many stat heads have to the strikeout is almost comical. It is not the be all and end all of pitching.

Without knowing the outcomes of either game, if I were told pitcher A went the entire game struck out 8 guys and walked one and pitcher B went the entire game striking out 14 and walking one, I'm taking pitcher B as more likely to have won his game, by a slim margin yes, but that's how much Lincecum's game score was better than Halladay's, by the slimmest of margins. Take the romanticism of the no hitter out of it and then judge the performances.

Bob Roarman
10-11-2010, 06:32 PM
Inaccurate how, exactly?

They're saying the "below average" K/9 ratios of yesteryear is proof that you don't need to be a strikeout pitcher to be successful (which I'm not arguing, there are always going to be examples and exceptions) but then conveniently forget that back then, a lot of those players with those "below average" K/9 ratios were average back in their time. Compared to now, yes of course it looks below average. Things change.

DumpJerry
10-11-2010, 06:36 PM
Without knowing the outcomes of either game, if I were told pitcher A went the entire game struck out 8 guys and walked one and pitcher B went the entire game striking out 14 and walking one, I'm taking pitcher B as more likely to have won his game, by a slim margin yes, but that's how much Lincecum's game score was better than Halladay's, by the slimmest of margins. Take the romanticism of the no hitter out of it and then judge the performances.
You know, whenever Paulie went 2-4 in a game where he struck out twice and homered twice giving the Sox all the runs needed for a win, I always said take out those home runs and then judge his performance that day. For the money we paid Paulie, he should not strike out.

Oblong
10-11-2010, 06:39 PM
Oblong:

Mearly an example. To me strikeout pitchers are fine but then don't complain (now saying you specifically by the way just in general terms) about pitch counts and overuse.

One or the other gang, ya can't have both.

Lip

I don't accept that it has to be one or the other. Show me an example of this contradiction by someone.

I think you are confusing # of strikeouts vs the strikeout rate.

and I go back to the original premise of this thread that Bill James didn't say that Lincecum's game was more dominant. A fun system that he developed showed that to be the result but it's not meant to be the definitive answer. He wouldn't claim that.

Rdy2PlayBall
10-11-2010, 06:43 PM
You know, whenever Paulie went 2-4 in a game where he struck out twice and homered twice giving the Sox all the runs needed for a win, I always said take out those home runs and then judge his performance that day. For the money we paid Paulie, he should not strike out.How is that even close to being the same?

Ranger
10-11-2010, 06:49 PM
uh Ranger.... Mariano River averaged 8.2 K/9 for his career. The average during his career has been 6-7. So I'm not sure what exactly bringing him up is supposed to do to counter my argument. Bob Lemon, yeah averaged 3-4 K/9 in his career. Guess what the average was? 3-4.

Lip, what is one game supposed to prove?

Uh, Oblong....Rivera is great, not because of strikeouts, but because hitters can't make solid contact, thus they rarely get hits. If he strikes out one per inning he pitches, he's still pitching to some sort of contact most of the time.

Again, check the defense when he's out there. They're expecting weak hits.

Oblong
10-11-2010, 07:14 PM
Uh, Oblong....Rivera is great, not because of strikeouts, but because hitters can't make solid contact, thus they rarely get hits. If he strikes out one per inning he pitches, he's still pitching to some sort of contact most of the time.

Again, check the defense when he's out there. They're expecting weak hits.

Ok, but how does that change the fact that his strikeout rate is above average? It doesn't. The argument isn't that you need a high strikeout rate to be great. The argument is that strikeout rate is a great way to judge how good a pitcher's been to help you judge how good he's likely to continue to be. By having a high rate he's reducing the chances of the other team to get hits. If they were making more contact then there's more chances for hits.

Daver
10-11-2010, 07:31 PM
They're saying the "below average" K/9 ratios of yesteryear is proof that you don't need to be a strikeout pitcher to be successful (which I'm not arguing, there are always going to be examples and exceptions) but then conveniently forget that back then, a lot of those players with those "below average" K/9 ratios were average back in their time. Compared to now, yes of course it looks below average. Things change.

Well, if you want to get right down to it, comparing pitchers from the pre seventies to now is a debate that can't be won, once they lowered the mound all comparisons went out the window.

The advent of free agency changed the way teams viewed pitchers, they went from being another player to being a difficult to replace resource over time, in direct correlation with the wimpification of the position, it is the only position in all of pro sports where the perception is that the players are weaker than in the past instead of stronger.

Bob Roarman
10-11-2010, 07:59 PM
Well, if you want to get right down to it, comparing pitchers from the pre seventies to now is a debate that can't be won, once they lowered the mound all comparisons went out the window.

The advent of free agency changed the way teams viewed pitchers, they went from being another player to being a difficult to replace resource over time, in direct correlation with the wimpification of the position, it is the only position in all of pro sports where the perception is that the players are weaker than in the past instead of stronger.

Exactly my point. Thus the assumption being completely inaccurate. The game has changed since then.

You know, whenever Paulie went 2-4 in a game where he struck out twice and homered twice giving the Sox all the runs needed for a win, I always said take out those home runs and then judge his performance that day. For the money we paid Paulie, he should not strike out.

Wow that's completely out of left field and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm talking about. Judge his performance for that day? He's a .500 hitter, I'll take that every game, just as I would take either Lincecum's or Halladay's performances every game. But if I had to make a choice on which one gave my team the greater likelihood of winning the game, I'd take Lincecum's. But just barely, because it's very close, just like the game score stat had it.

This is what I'm talking about when I say for some people there just is no gray area, it's only black and white. If one guy had a great game, the other guy was horse****. I can write a preface on every post about how I'm in no way taking anything away from what Halladay did and it still won't be enough.

voodoochile
10-11-2010, 08:41 PM
Well, if you want to get right down to it, comparing pitchers from the pre seventies to now is a debate that can't be won, once they lowered the mound all comparisons went out the window.

The advent of free agency changed the way teams viewed pitchers, they went from being another player to being a difficult to replace resource over time, in direct correlation with the wimpification of the position, it is the only position in all of pro sports where the perception is that the players are weaker than in the past instead of stronger.

Well there's also a much greater need for pitchers today than there were before expansion.

Prior to 1962(?) there were only 32 SP in each league (I'm guessing - that total might be a lot lower given guys like Wood who pitched every second day almost). So the total number needed would have been around 64 or maybe 60.

Now with 5 man rotations and 30 teams you need 150 SP. Yes, the pool they are drawing from is bigger and the conditioning regimes are better (in theory) but you've also got more competition from the other sports for top athletes and it's a lot easier to just about any other position in professional sports than be a MLB caliber pitcher. Given the failure rates for pitchers coming through the minors a lot of athletes who might be good enough to be pitchers might be playing soccer or football or hockey or basketball or even trying to be position players because there's a higher chance of making it to the majors and a better chance of a lengthy career if you do.

It may just be that there aren't enough talented pitchers to fill the pool at the level it was filled in the past on a per-capita basis.

In addition changes in hitting strategies and bat weights as well as materials has mad pitching in the majors a lot more difficult than it used to be when you could get by with less junk which tends to wear the joints harder (as I understand it).

Now I'm no expert, so please feel free to correct any misconceptions I have posted, but it doesn't seem to be as simple as saying, pitchers are being treated with kid gloves when they don't need to be.

Oblong
10-11-2010, 09:01 PM
There's also equipment factors, like gloves. Night games. West coast games. Not travelling by trains. Changes in the ball.

Plus the nature of the game itself changed. Strikeouts may have gone up as much because hitters didn't care so much about striking out if it meant a greater chance at a HR or more power. Instead of playing the entire at bat just to make contact like they may have done, they'll swing away. In fact it may very well be because of the equipment back then that guys felt more confident that all they had to do was put the ball in play. You probably didn't see too many diving stops and throws or things like that because the gloves were so bad compared to today's game. So now the emphasis is on making solid contact, an accepting missing more often.

SI1020
10-11-2010, 09:08 PM
They're saying the "below average" K/9 ratios of yesteryear is proof that you don't need to be a strikeout pitcher to be successful (which I'm not arguing, there are always going to be examples and exceptions) but then conveniently forget that back then, a lot of those players with those "below average" K/9 ratios were average back in their time. Compared to now, yes of course it looks below average. Things change. I understand that point, but IMO it proves that you don't have to hold fast to the idea that a high K rate is necessary to be an effective pitcher. There are eras of the game when K rates were low, but there were no shortage of pitching greats. When you get into these stat arguments it's almost like trying to debate true believers in a religious sense. If I have time I'll try to do a more comprehensive review. I note that when Robin Roberts was in his youthful prime in 1950 is K/9 ratio was 4.3 against a league average of 4.1. I suppose to some that proves what a great strikeout pitcher he was.

Daver
10-11-2010, 09:19 PM
Well there's also a much greater need for pitchers today than there were before expansion.

Prior to 1962(?) there were only 32 SP in each league (I'm guessing - that total might be a lot lower given guys like Wood who pitched every second day almost). So the total number needed would have been around 64 or maybe 60.

Now with 5 man rotations and 30 teams you need 150 SP. Yes, the pool they are drawing from is bigger and the conditioning regimes are better (in theory) but you've also got more competition from the other sports for top athletes and it's a lot easier to just about any other position in professional sports than be a MLB caliber pitcher. Given the failure rates for pitchers coming through the minors a lot of athletes who might be good enough to be pitchers might be playing soccer or football or hockey or basketball or even trying to be position players because there's a higher chance of making it to the majors and a better chance of a lengthy career if you do.

It may just be that there aren't enough talented pitchers to fill the pool at the level it was filled in the past on a per-capita basis.

In addition changes in hitting strategies and bat weights as well as materials has mad pitching in the majors a lot more difficult than it used to be when you could get by with less junk which tends to wear the joints harder (as I understand it).

Now I'm no expert, so please feel free to correct any misconceptions I have posted, but it doesn't seem to be as simple as saying, pitchers are being treated with kid gloves when they don't need to be.

Believe what you choose, it does not change the fact that starting pitcher is the only position in ALL pro sports that is perceived to have gotten weaker, where everything else has gotten far stronger due to the fact that they are now considered full time athletes as opposed to part time players.

I don't buy a bit of your argument.

Oblong
10-11-2010, 09:39 PM
We have learned more about the body and pitching in th last 30 years than every year before that combined. With advanced video technology, pitch f/x, plus medical breakthroughs, it's not even comparable to how it was before. Heck, even 25 years ago you couldn't get a straight answer as to when to ice the arm or if at all. With the rise in salaries and with it the long term deals, the clubs have learned that pitchers are a very tender asset. It's not wimpification, it's financial. Before if a guy got hurt, big deal, he wasn't with the club next year. But now if he gets hurt then you are on the hook for 2 more years so you better make sure he doesn't get hurt. So they've spent more on research. And in the game pitchers have available to them far greater tools for analysis to make them more effective.

I've also had a theory that the innings pitched between long ago and now is not comparable because as strikeouts and walks increased over the years so do pitches per inning. So a guy today might go 110 pitches in 6 2/3 innings but 60 years ago those 110 pitches might be good for 8 or 9.

I also think we tend to remember only the workhorses back then and that becomes our baseline for everybody. Well today we've got our studs like Halladay.

*, now for my Joe Posnanski impersonation. I've got the same argument for comedy shows like SNL when people complain about how it's not as good as it used to be. We only remember the funny stuff from our era of choice. We forget the lousy bits after the musical break, or when out of mercy the band would play 3 times)

voodoochile
10-11-2010, 10:01 PM
We have learned more about the body and pitching in th last 30 years than every year before that combined. With advanced video technology, pitch f/x, plus medical breakthroughs, it's not even comparable to how it was before. Heck, even 25 years ago you couldn't get a straight answer as to when to ice the arm or if at all. With the rise in salaries and with it the long term deals, the clubs have learned that pitchers are a very tender asset. It's not wimpification, it's financial. Before if a guy got hurt, big deal, he wasn't with the club next year. But now if he gets hurt then you are on the hook for 2 more years so you better make sure he doesn't get hurt. So they've spent more on research. And in the game pitchers have available to them far greater tools for analysis to make them more effective.

I've also had a theory that the innings pitched between long ago and now is not comparable because as strikeouts and walks increased over the years so do pitches per inning. So a guy today might go 110 pitches in 6 2/3 innings but 60 years ago those 110 pitches might be good for 8 or 9.

I also think we tend to remember only the workhorses back then and that becomes our baseline for everybody. Well today we've got our studs like Halladay.

*, now for my Joe Posnanski impersonation. I've got the same argument for comedy shows like SNL when people complain about how it's not as good as it used to be. We only remember the funny stuff from our era of choice. We forget the lousy bits after the musical break, or when out of mercy the band would play 3 times)

I completely agree with the highlighted part. No one remembers the Jim Parque's of yesteryear. 50 years from now they will still remember guys like Halladay.

Daver
10-11-2010, 10:14 PM
We have learned more about the body and pitching in th last 30 years than every year before that combined. With advanced video technology, pitch f/x, plus medical breakthroughs, it's not even comparable to how it was before. Heck, even 25 years ago you couldn't get a straight answer as to when to ice the arm or if at all. With the rise in salaries and with it the long term deals, the clubs have learned that pitchers are a very tender asset. It's not wimpification, it's financial. Before if a guy got hurt, big deal, he wasn't with the club next year. But now if he gets hurt then you are on the hook for 2 more years so you better make sure he doesn't get hurt. So they've spent more on research. And in the game pitchers have available to them far greater tools for analysis to make them more effective.

I've also had a theory that the innings pitched between long ago and now is not comparable because as strikeouts and walks increased over the years so do pitches per inning. So a guy today might go 110 pitches in 6 2/3 innings but 60 years ago those 110 pitches might be good for 8 or 9.

I also think we tend to remember only the workhorses back then and that becomes our baseline for everybody. Well today we've got our studs like Halladay.

*, now for my Joe Posnanski impersonation. I've got the same argument for comedy shows like SNL when people complain about how it's not as good as it used to be. We only remember the funny stuff from our era of choice. We forget the lousy bits after the musical break, or when out of mercy the band would play 3 times)

Pitchers get hurt because they don't throw enough.

DumpJerry
10-12-2010, 08:35 AM
Without knowing the outcomes of either game, if I were told pitcher A went the entire game struck out 8 guys and walked one and pitcher B went the entire game striking out 14 and walking one, I'm taking pitcher B as more likely to have won his game, by a slim margin yes, but that's how much Lincecum's game score was better than Halladay's, by the slimmest of margins. Take the romanticism of the no hitter out of it and then judge the performances.

You know, whenever Paulie went 2-4 in a game where he struck out twice and homered twice giving the Sox all the runs needed for a win, I always said take out those home runs and then judge his performance that day. For the money we paid Paulie, he should not strike out.

How is that even close to being the same?

Wow that's completely out of left field and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm talking about. Judge his performance for that day? He's a .500 hitter, I'll take that every game, just as I would take either Lincecum's or Halladay's performances every game. But if I had to make a choice on which one gave my team the greater likelihood of winning the game, I'd take Lincecum's. But just barely, because it's very close, just like the game score stat had it.

This is what I'm talking about when I say for some people there just is no gray area, it's only black and white. If one guy had a great game, the other guy was horse****. I can write a preface on every post about how I'm in no way taking anything away from what Halladay did and it still won't be enough.
Sigh. I fear the future (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Obtuse).

TDog
10-12-2010, 01:13 PM
I completely agree with the highlighted part. No one remembers the Jim Parque's of yesteryear. 50 years from now they will still remember guys like Halladay.

But some of the pitchers who might be just above the Jim Parques of today will be regarded as the Milt Pappases of yesteryear because the standards are dropping.

Comparing strikeouts decades ago also is deceptive because hitters don't work not to be struck out the way they used to. It seems that many players, certainly stat people, believe strikeouts for a hitter aren't any worse than any other kinds of out. The Diamondbacks this year averaged about 9.4 strikeouts per game. The free-swinging 1977 Chicago White Sox who hit home runs unprecedented for any team that called Old Comiskey home, averaged about 4.1 strikeouts per game. No one on the team struck out in triple digits, although Richie Zisk was criticized for coming close. (It's true that when I looked it up years ago, I was surprised to learn the White Sox that year were the toughest team in the league to strike out, but even the easiest that year had only about 1.5 more strikeouts per game.)

The irony is that many of the same people arguing for strikeouts being a factor in evaluating the quality of a pitcher consider a hitter's strikeouts insignificant.

Missing bats wouldn't be such an abundant skill if hitters were more concerned with not striking out.

asindc
10-12-2010, 03:20 PM
But some of the pitchers who might be just above the Jim Parques of today will be regarded as the Milt Pappases of yesteryear because the standards are dropping.

Comparing strikeouts decades ago also is deceptive because hitters don't work not to be struck out the way they used to. It seems that many players, certainly stat people, believe strikeouts for a hitter aren't any worse than any other kinds of out. The Diamondbacks this year averaged about 9.4 strikeouts per game. The free-swinging 1977 Chicago White Sox who hit home runs unprecedented for any team that called Old Comiskey home, averaged about 4.1 strikeouts per game. No one on the team struck out in triple digits, although Richie Zisk was criticized for coming close. (It's true that when I looked it up years ago, I was surprised to learn the White Sox that year were the toughest team in the league to strike out, but even the easiest that year had only about 1.5 more strikeouts per game.)

The irony is that many of the same people arguing for strikeouts being a factor in evaluating the quality of a pitcher consider a hitter's strikeouts insignificant.

Missing bats wouldn't be such an abundant skill if hitters were more concerned with not striking out.

You speak truth.

Rdy2PlayBall
10-12-2010, 04:32 PM
Sigh. I fear the future (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Obtuse).Wow, **** you.
Your comparison still blows.

Mod Edit: I think your ban is self-explanatory.

Craig Grebeck
10-13-2010, 12:41 PM
Inaccurate how, exactly?
Because Lip is constructing an argument that follows this logic:

a) you believe strikeouts are a more effective way of recording an out than surrendering a batted-ball that is fielded and recorded as an out;

THEREFORE:

b) you are part of the sabermetric world;

THEREFORE:

c) you believe pitch counts are extremely important, and want to preserve a pitcher's value by limiting his pitch count.

All of this, it would seem, is an attack on this scary world of "stat-based" analysis, i.e. sabermetrics. But, as the opinions of individual scouts tend to be nuanced, (therefore rendering a grossly constructed "scouting world" similarly inaccurate) the opinions of individual folks who may subscribe to certain ideas that were formed/perpetuated by sabermetric people also vary. Basically, just because one person believes strikeouts are an important and vital aspect of analysis does not mean they are also inclined to believe in reduced pitch counts, or follow PAP (pitcher abuse points -- invented by Will Carroll).

There are plenty of people in the "sabermetric world" who believe in giving pitchers more work (what Daver wants, basically), by going to a four-man rotation, upping pitch counts in the minors (what TDog wants, allowing pitchers to excel at "finishing games" and earning wins), and by giving starting pitchers the opportunity to have their "side-session days" as members of the bullpen -- giving them more meaningful work, and allowing the best pitchers (i.e. the non-bullpen guys) to be used as much as possible.

Lip is inaccurate in that he's building up an argument that no one is really making. I'm fine with pitchers having high pitch counts -- there are other ways to ensure health. Does it behoove a pitcher to be economic with his pitch count? Yes, of course. That's not disputable.

Lip Man 1
10-13-2010, 01:47 PM
Grebeck:

Thank you for going into my subconscious and telling everyone what I think.

I appreciate that.

I was simply saying that I don't understand the disconnect from the stat-geeks. Strikeouts over all! (like the doofuses at BP shout repeatedly....if you don't have strikeout pitchers you're not worth a ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Yet these SAME PEOPLE are the first to bitch and moan about overuse, pitch counts and the like

Forgive me for being a stupid simpleton unable to grasp your mathematical theorums but those two points of view to me seem contradictory.

That's all I was saying / asking.

As for me I'll contiune to enjoy a very human game and leave the computer printouts to the grads from M.I.T.

Lip

doublem23
10-13-2010, 01:53 PM
As for me I'll contiune to enjoy a very human game and leave the computer printouts to the grads from M.I.T.


You realize, of course, people would actually take your arguments seriously if you didn't resort to ridiculous pettiness like this, right?

Lip Man 1
10-13-2010, 02:39 PM
Double:

I didn't start this thing. I made a simple observation, then some decided to explain what I was thinking and what I was trying to say and paint what I considered an unflattering picture about my thoughts. This is the same guy remember who has made comments in the past about the fact that I'm 55 and in essence doesn't "get it." (which drew rebukes from people like Spawn and Dump Jerry)

No I'm not going to let something like that go, sorry.

As far as I'm concerned I said my piece, I stand behind it and I'll now let it go.

Lip

Craig Grebeck
10-13-2010, 03:07 PM
Grebeck:

Thank you for going into my subconscious and telling everyone what I think.

I appreciate that.

I was simply saying that I don't understand the disconnect from the stat-geeks. Strikeouts over all! (like the doofuses at BP shout repeatedly....if you don't have strikeout pitchers you're not worth a ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Yet these SAME PEOPLE are the first to bitch and moan about overuse, pitch counts and the like

Forgive me for being a stupid simpleton unable to grasp your mathematical theorums but those two points of view to me seem contradictory.

That's all I was saying / asking.

As for me I'll contiune to enjoy a very human game and leave the computer printouts to the grads from M.I.T.

Lip
Simple observation: the people at BP do not speak for everyone. Bringing them up in every argument does you no good.

I don't care what they think or say, for the most part. You've refused to respond to anything I actually said, like thoughts on the ideas regarding pitcher use that I put forth.

cards press box
10-13-2010, 11:46 PM
According to Bill James' Game Score metric, Tim Lincecum's 2-hit shutout last night was "more dominant" than Roy Halladay's no-hitter or Don Larsen's perfect game.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101008&content_id=15505484&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

Both Doc Halladay and Tim Lincecum pitched absolute, lights-out great games in the NLDS and their matchup in Game 1 in the NLCS is a really great one.

To me, the 2010 Giants are a total throwback to the White Sox of the 1960's. I would love to see them win the World Series. We have a number of Sox fans of a certain age on this board. Does the Lincecum/Matt Cain/Jonathan Sanchez/Madison Bumgarner led Giants remind anyone else of the days of Gary Peters. Joel Horlen, Juan Pizzaro, Tommy John, et al.?

Daver
10-14-2010, 12:02 AM
Because Lip is constructing an argument that follows this logic


No, you are trying assume what someone else is saying, we all know what happens when you assume.

Craig Grebeck
10-14-2010, 12:51 AM
No, you are trying assume what someone else is saying, we all know what happens when you assume.
No, I am merely stating my interpretation of his argument.

Bob Roarman
10-14-2010, 02:15 PM
Just...let them have their world. It's easier that way.

Craig Grebeck
10-14-2010, 03:01 PM
No, you are trying assume what someone else is saying, we all know what happens when you assume.
Daver, what do you think of the idea of starting pitchers spending their side-session days as members of the bullpen? I'm not endorsing it, just curious what you make of it.

Craig Grebeck
10-14-2010, 03:47 PM
This is so stupid.

A No-hitter is less impressive than a Two-Hitter and a 13-12 pitcher is Cy Young.

I really hate stat-guys about 60% of the time.
Why would this be a bad thing, again?

Daver
10-14-2010, 04:46 PM
Daver, what do you think of the idea of starting pitchers spending their side-session days as members of the bullpen? I'm not endorsing it, just curious what you make of it.

I would do away with side-sessions all together, as I think there is a better approach to working pitchers, and it does not include starters pitching out of the bullpen.

voodoochile
10-15-2010, 01:05 PM
Why would this be a bad thing, again?

Well just for the sake of argument, the reason it's called the Cy Young award is because he's the all time leader in wins. No one ever talks about his ERA or his WHIP or any other stats, but 511 is one of the most well known numbers in sports and it's considered by many the ultimate unbeatable record because of the way the use of pitchers has changed since he pitched (as has been the main topic of this thread to a large extent).

I for one think if you want to honor the award the amount of wins the pitcher has should be a consideration. I think there can be exceptions, but that would require (again, IMO) stunningly amazing numbers, a supremely crappy team around him and a large element of bad luck too boot.

Say 13-12, 2.5 or lower ERA, ~300K, 1.0 or lower WHIP, team with <60 wins, run support <3/gm and an average of 1.5 errors per game committed in games he started.

That would be a perfect storm that might make me think otherwise, but I do believe wins matter for the SP though we've been up and down that road before so I doubt we'll cover any new territory.

Tragg
10-16-2010, 09:31 AM
Let me play devil's advocate here. Strikeouts are 100% on the pitcher. No defense, no luck, no bad/good bounces.
Nonsense
They are on the batter.
They are on the ball just nudging foul.
They are on the tip of the bat just ticking or not ticking the ball.
They are on the umpire.

Now they may be the best way to judge pitcher effectiveness. But that's because the other ways are more flawed.

Milw
10-16-2010, 01:53 PM
Well just for the sake of argument, the reason it's called the Cy Young award is because he's the all time leader in wins. No one ever talks about his ERA or his WHIP or any other stats, but 511 is one of the most well known numbers in sports and it's considered by many the ultimate unbeatable record because of the way the use of pitchers has changed since he pitched (as has been the main topic of this thread to a large extent).

I for one think if you want to honor the award the amount of wins the pitcher has should be a consideration. I think there can be exceptions, but that would require (again, IMO) stunningly amazing numbers, a supremely crappy team around him and a large element of bad luck too boot.

Say 13-12, 2.5 or lower ERA, ~300K, 1.0 or lower WHIP, team with <60 wins, run support <3/gm and an average of 1.5 errors per game committed in games he started.

That would be a perfect storm that might make me think otherwise, but I do believe wins matter for the SP though we've been up and down that road before so I doubt we'll cover any new territory.
W-L record is probably the least telling of the major pitching stats. Who had the better season, a guy with a 20-10 record and a 4.20 ERA, or a guy with a 13-12 record and a 3.10 ERA?

I don't mean to say that W-L is unimportant, but in terms of illustrating the relative talent/performance of a pitcher, it just isn't very useful.

And before you jump on me as being "one of those statheads who doesn't get it": I think Bill James is a false prophet and that sabremetrics have done more to ruin baseball than help it. But those folks are right about W-L records.

TDog
10-16-2010, 03:10 PM
W-L record is probably the least telling of the major pitching stats. Who had the better season, a guy with a 20-10 record and a 4.20 ERA, or a guy with a 13-12 record and a 3.10 ERA?

I don't mean to say that W-L is unimportant, but in terms of illustrating the relative talent/performance of a pitcher, it just isn't very useful.

And before you jump on me as being "one of those statheads who doesn't get it": I think Bill James is a false prophet and that sabremetrics have done more to ruin baseball than help it. But those folks are right about W-L records.

Voodoo nailed it. What was Cy Young's career ERA? ERA didn't even become a stat until he was retired. Statisticians have gone though box scores and computed it, but Cy Young was about winning games.

The Cy Young award isn't about crunching numbers. It's about winning. It doesn't matter if you're a better pitcher if you don't win games.

BringHomeDaBacon
10-16-2010, 03:16 PM
According to Bill James' Game Score metric, Tim Lincecum's 2-hit shutout last night was "more dominant" than Roy Halladay's no-hitter or Don Larsen's perfect game.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101008&content_id=15505484&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

How does this have anything to do with stats?

It depends on how you define "more dominant". Based on the way Bill James defines "more dominant" Lincecum's performance prevails. Based on your definition Halladay prevails. It's nothing more than an excellent example of what makes baseball discussions so great.

Marqhead
10-16-2010, 03:25 PM
Voodoo nailed it. What was Cy Young's career ERA? ERA didn't even become a stat until he was retired. Statisticians have gone though box scores and computed it, but Cy Young was about winning games.

The Cy Young award isn't about crunching numbers. It's about winning. It doesn't matter if you're a better pitcher if you don't win games.

Unlike White Sox baseball, not everything is black and white.

BringHomeDaBacon
10-16-2010, 03:34 PM
Voodoo nailed it. What was Cy Young's career ERA? ERA didn't even become a stat until he was retired. Statisticians have gone though box scores and computed it, but Cy Young was about winning games.

The Cy Young award isn't about crunching numbers. It's about winning. It doesn't matter if you're a better pitcher if you don't win games.

Kevin Slowey must be as good as Felix Hernandez since they both won 13 games.

Milw
10-16-2010, 03:43 PM
Voodoo nailed it. What was Cy Young's career ERA? ERA didn't even become a stat until he was retired. Statisticians have gone though box scores and computed it, but Cy Young was about winning games.

The Cy Young award isn't about crunching numbers. It's about winning. It doesn't matter if you're a better pitcher if you don't win games.
Really? So when a pitcher throws nine innings of one-hit ball and loses 1-0, he's done less to earn the CYA than a pitcher who gives up 6 earned in 5 IP but wins 7-6?

The Cy Young Award is given to the best pitcher in each respective league, not the one with the most wins. If you honestly think most wins equals best pitcher, then I'm flabbergasted and I guess the argument is over. But even a modicum of common sense should tell you that there are a whole host of statistics that reflect a pitcher's talent much more than W-L record.

voodoochile
10-16-2010, 04:55 PM
W-L record is probably the least telling of the major pitching stats. Who had the better season, a guy with a 20-10 record and a 4.20 ERA, or a guy with a 13-12 record and a 3.10 ERA?

I don't mean to say that W-L is unimportant, but in terms of illustrating the relative talent/performance of a pitcher, it just isn't very useful.

And before you jump on me as being "one of those statheads who doesn't get it": I think Bill James is a false prophet and that sabremetrics have done more to ruin baseball than help it. But those folks are right about W-L records.

I disagree. I've been down this road before. I agree there are players who luck into a bunch of wins occasionally, but you are limiting the discussion too much and yeah, I'd take the guy with the 20 wins and the 4.2 ERA in your example because there's not enough information.

What aren't we seeing there? Did the guy with the lower ERA crap himself every time his team gave up an error and thus average an unearned run per start?

How many innings did the guy with the 4.2 ERA throw? Maybe the guy with the low ERA was babied and got pulled regularly in the 6th while the guy with 20 wins ended up throwing 8 complete games. Maybe he had a few really horrible performances where he gave up 7 runs in the first 3 innings which drove up his overall ERA but for most of the year he did a great job.

You earn wins as a starter by going deep into games. A high number of wins is normally a symptom of a guy who saved the bullpen a lot of work.

Really? So when a pitcher throws nine innings of one-hit ball and loses 1-0, he's done less to earn the CYA than a pitcher who gives up 6 earned in 5 IP but wins 7-6?

The Cy Young Award is given to the best pitcher in each respective league, not the one with the most wins. If you honestly think most wins equals best pitcher, then I'm flabbergasted and I guess the argument is over. But even a modicum of common sense should tell you that there are a whole host of statistics that reflect a pitcher's talent much more than W-L record.

No one is saying it's ALL about wins, but that precluding the wins from the evaluation is a disservice to the name on the award.

Take this to an extreme. What if you guy with the 3.1 ERA was 12-13 or worse? Is he still eligible?

Wins aren't the only stat that matters but they should matter.

Daver
10-16-2010, 05:03 PM
The argument could be made to dismiss ERA as a quantifiable stat because it is subject to judgment calls that can be biased in one direction or the other.

Bob Roarman
10-16-2010, 05:06 PM
I don't see how any of that applies to this year's example with Felix Hernandez. It's not because he is getting pulled or is being babied, he leads everyone with almost 250 innings pitched and is 3rd with 6 complete games. It's because his team is ass that he doesn't have the wins. He's the best pitcher in the league. The advanced stats are never always going to tell the perfect story, but it tells a hell of a lot more of the pitcher than your basic traditional stat line does. And I don't see why because it might not be perfect (and nothing is), a lot of fans scoff at it and disregard it almost altogether. Why? Why willingly blind yourself to new information that might *GASP* change the way you look at the game and make you understand it a little better?

Marqhead
10-16-2010, 05:14 PM
The argument could be made to dismiss ERA as a quantifiable stat because it is subject to judgment calls that can be biased in one direction or the other.

The argument could be made to dismiss wins, losses, hits, outs, balls and strikes as quantifiable stats because they are subject to judgment calls that can be biased in one direction or the other.

voodoochile
10-16-2010, 05:22 PM
I don't see how any of that applies to this year's example with Felix Hernandez. It's not because he is getting pulled or is being babied, he leads everyone with almost 250 innings pitched and is 3rd with 6 complete games. It's because his team is ass that he doesn't have the wins. He's the best pitcher in the league. The advanced stats are never always going to tell the perfect story, but it tells a hell of a lot more of the pitcher than your basic traditional stat line does. And I don't see why because it might not be perfect (and nothing is), a lot of fans scoff at it and disregard it almost altogether. Why? Why willingly blind yourself to new information that might *GASP* change the way you look at the game and make you understand it a little better?

Well I wasn't talking about a specific example, but I don't have a problem with CC winning the award this year. In fact just looking at the over all stats, he'd be my first choice because those 21 wins really stick out.

Daver
10-16-2010, 05:25 PM
The argument could be made to dismiss wins, losses, hits, outs, balls and strikes as quantifiable stats because they are subject to judgment calls that can be biased in one direction or the other.

Exactly.

It is also why analyzing anything from a strictly stats POV as it relates to baseball is little more than mental masturbation, as there is no way to factor human error into any formula you happen to be using to measure anything done on the diamond.

Oblong
10-16-2010, 05:27 PM
In Cy Young's day Wins were more indicative of the pitchers because they made more starts and the starters stayed in the game a lot longer. Nowadays with 5 man rotations and increased bullpens it's no longer applicable to me to even assign a pitcher a W or L. It's especially irrelevant for relievers as they can give up the lead, then if their team comes back, they can get a W. That seems exactly wrong.

ERA is not obsolete but I'd argue it's not very useful to evaluate a pitcher, but rather better to use it on the whole team. A team's defense and bullpen all play into it.

If it were just about Wins then just give out the Cy YOung Award to the guy with the most wins and come up with another award for Best Pitcher.

Bob Roarman
10-16-2010, 05:47 PM
Well I wasn't talking about a specific example, but I don't have a problem with CC winning the award this year. In fact just looking at the over all stats, he'd be my first choice because those 21 wins really stick out.

How could you look at the overall stats and still have him be your first choice? The overall stats has Hernandez in front of CC and everyone else in just about every single pitching category other than wins. Now you think, maybe, just maybe, it has to something with his team that he doesn't have close to as many wins as Sabathia (pitching on a likely AL pennant winning Yankees team) does?

voodoochile
10-16-2010, 06:56 PM
How could you look at the overall stats and still have him be your first choice? The overall stats has Hernandez in front of CC and everyone else in just about every single pitching category other than wins. Now you think, maybe, just maybe, it has to something with his team that he doesn't have close to as many wins as Sabathia (pitching on a likely AL pennant winning Yankees team) does?

Again, I've been over this before and to me wins matter as an individual stat.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree...

voodoochile
10-16-2010, 06:58 PM
In Cy Young's day Wins were more indicative of the pitchers because they made more starts and the starters stayed in the game a lot longer. Nowadays with 5 man rotations and increased bullpens it's no longer applicable to me to even assign a pitcher a W or L. It's especially irrelevant for relievers as they can give up the lead, then if their team comes back, they can get a W. That seems exactly wrong.

ERA is not obsolete but I'd argue it's not very useful to evaluate a pitcher, but rather better to use it on the whole team. A team's defense and bullpen all play into it.

If it were just about Wins then just give out the Cy YOung Award to the guy with the most wins and come up with another award for Best Pitcher.


And again, it's NOT JUST about wins, BUT (and like mine, it's huge) from my perspective wins are part of the argument.

No one's answered my question. If Hernandez were 12-13 instead of 13-12 would people still be making this argument?

SI1020
10-16-2010, 07:28 PM
This thread depesses me. We are fully into the age of deconstructionism. Nothing matters unless you the individual think it does.

voodoochile
10-16-2010, 07:47 PM
This thread depesses me. We are fully into the age of deconstructionism. Nothing matters unless you the individual think it does.

Nothing new there. Perception is reality. Thus has it ever been...

Craig Grebeck
10-16-2010, 09:06 PM
And again, it's NOT JUST about wins, BUT (and like mine, it's huge) from my perspective wins are part of the argument.

No one's answered my question. If Hernandez were 12-13 instead of 13-12 would people still be making this argument?

Yes.

Milw
10-16-2010, 11:58 PM
And again, it's NOT JUST about wins, BUT (and like mine, it's huge) from my perspective wins are part of the argument.

No one's answered my question. If Hernandez were 12-13 instead of 13-12 would people still be making this argument?
Absolutely. Among the stats that tell me more about a pitcher than W-L, just off the top of my head: ERA, WHIP, K:BB, IP. If you've got a pitcher who is leading the league in those four categories, but he has a 9-15 record, he's still my pick for Cy Young Award.

If the bullpen sucks, a starter will lose out on a lot of wins he would've otherwise had. If the offense sucks, a starter will lose games he should've won.

To the point: If you put CC on the Mariners this year and Felix on the Yankees, which player do you think ends up with the better record? Yeah, it would've been Felix. Is it because he would've somehow magically been a better pitcher in pinstripes? Nope.

More than any other pitching stat, W-L is a reflection of the team. That doesn't make it a meaningless stat, but in terms of evaluating the pitcher, especially comparatively to pitchers on other teams, it's pretty damn useless.

TDog
10-17-2010, 01:51 AM
Really? So when a pitcher throws nine innings of one-hit ball and loses 1-0, he's done less to earn the CYA than a pitcher who gives up 6 earned in 5 IP but wins 7-6?

The Cy Young Award is given to the best pitcher in each respective league, not the one with the most wins. If you honestly think most wins equals best pitcher, then I'm flabbergasted and I guess the argument is over. But even a modicum of common sense should tell you that there are a whole host of statistics that reflect a pitcher's talent much more than W-L record.

Oddly enough, Hernandez didn't lose any 1-0 one-hitters this season. His last loss of the season was a 1-0 loss, but before that game, opposing teams averaged more than six runs in his losses. He wasn't even the toughest luck pitcher in the league. I have found that pitchers who lose 1-0 games tend to win a lot more than they lose. Nobody lost more 1-0 games (five) than Ferguson Jenkins did in 1968, but that was the second of his six consecutive 20-win seasons. It was the winner of three 1-0 games who won the 1968 Cy Young Award, of course.

Hypotheticals that don't fit the facts notwithstanding, Hernandez didn't approach having the best season of any American League pitcher this season. A computer might tell you he did if you feed it statistics with more weight on the stats that you think is more important whether or not they win games. Certainly Hernandez was an elite pitcher. He was very tough to beat, but he was beaten a lot. There were low-scoring games where he gave up late big hits that prevented him from winning. He failed to close out teams.

If he had pitched better, he would have won more games.

voodoochile
10-17-2010, 03:29 AM
Absolutely. Among the stats that tell me more about a pitcher than W-L, just off the top of my head: ERA, WHIP, K:BB, IP. If you've got a pitcher who is leading the league in those four categories, but he has a 9-15 record, he's still my pick for Cy Young Award.

If the bullpen sucks, a starter will lose out on a lot of wins he would've otherwise had. If the offense sucks, a starter will lose games he should've won.

To the point: If you put CC on the Mariners this year and Felix on the Yankees, which player do you think ends up with the better record? Yeah, it would've been Felix. Is it because he would've somehow magically been a better pitcher in pinstripes? Nope.

More than any other pitching stat, W-L is a reflection of the team. That doesn't make it a meaningless stat, but in terms of evaluating the pitcher, especially comparatively to pitchers on other teams, it's pretty damn useless.

Okay then there's nothing more to talk about I will never agree with that idea, period. I didn't think we'd come to a meeting of the minds anyway so I'm not surprised.

happydude
10-17-2010, 11:59 AM
No one with a W-L record hovering around .500 should be winning any individual awards regardless of his other stats. Ultimately, the pitcher's primary job is to win games. Of course his run support, which he's not responsible for, factors into his ability to win games.

What also factors into his ability to win games is skill at responding to the demands of a particular game. Sometimes that means giving up no runs; sometimes it means giving up several. Its speculative to conclude that because Hernandez's ERA is lower than Sabathia's, or whomever, he necessarily would have won more in NY and Sabathia would have won less in Seattle.

Some pitchers have a knack for consistently being on the wrong side of a 1-0, 2-1, 3-2 type game; others are adept at finding ways to give up just a little less than the opposition. Absent just pedestrian stats by the bigger winner, I'm picking him.

DumpJerry
10-17-2010, 01:50 PM
To the point: If you put CC on the Mariners this year and Felix on the Yankees, which player do you think ends up with the better record? Yeah, it would've been Felix. Is it because he would've somehow magically been a better pitcher in pinstripes? Nope.
The 2008 and 2009 Indians Cliff Lee would dispute this premise.

Marqhead
10-17-2010, 02:31 PM
The 2008 and 2009 Indians Cliff Lee would dispute this premise.

2008 Cliff Lee (Cy Young Cliff Lee) got 5.58 runs per game of support. 2010 Felix Hernandez got 3.07.

Pablo_Honey
10-17-2010, 02:32 PM
I know y'all ****ing love it when people bring up statistics so here goes my statistical breakdown of two pitchers. First is Pitcher A:

9 no-decisions where he earned 3 runs or less
7 losses where he earned 3 runs or less
5 ugly losses, 2 of them passable as bad luck
13 wins total, gave up no more than 2 runs in all of them
Now here's pitcher B:

3 no-decisions where he earned 3 runs or less
3 losses where he earned 3 runs or less
2 no-decisions where he gave up 5 runs
14 games won where he gave up no more than 2 runs max
6 games won where he gave up 3 ER
1 game won where he gave up 5 runs
Head to head, you can see who had the worse luck. Now before I get flamed like crazy as usual, I'll say that CC should win it because he excelled in a much much harsher environment. Having said that, I wouldn't disregard Felix completely from the Cy Young discussion just because of his poor W-L ratio. The guy had to give up fewer than 3 runs to get a win and was either tagged with a no-decision or a loss in games where CC would have won. He did his best to win games by pitching the most amount of innings in the league; striking out the second most amount of batters in the league; earned the fewest amount of runs among pitchers that logged 200+ innings this season; and the list goes on. Number-wise (except W-L), this kid was flat out one of the best in the league, and aside from a rough patch in the beginning, he's been shutting'em down very nicely. I can see why some folks want to see him win it instead of CC.

Bob Roarman
10-17-2010, 03:12 PM
Again, I've been over this before and to me wins matter as an individual stat.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree...

But that ONE stat, that one TEAM reflected stat, overrides EVERYTHING else? Overrides every other pitching stat that has Hernandez as the best pitcher in the league? Because you have to realize that's what you're saying here, you're ignoring a lot because of that one stat.That's not having the W-L record as merely part of the discussion, that's having the W-L record as the discussion. It's not just a small factor, it's the single most overriding factor to you. Because if it was just a small factor, it wouldn't outweigh the tons of other evidence that has him as the best in the league.

TDog
10-17-2010, 04:23 PM
But that ONE stat, that one TEAM reflected stat, overrides EVERYTHING else? Overrides every other pitching stat that has Hernandez as the best pitcher in the league? Because you have to realize that's what you're saying here, you're ignoring a lot because of that one stat.That's not having the W-L record as merely part of the discussion, that's having the W-L record as the discussion. It's not just a small factor, it's the single most overriding factor to you. Because if it was just a small factor, it wouldn't outweigh the tons of other evidence that has him as the best in the league.

If a pitcher is outpitched by the opposition in a substantial number of games, I don't see how anyone could consider him the pitcher in the league who had the best season. Unless you look at baseball as one might look at figure skating. If you want to give Felix Hernandez a 10 for losing 1-0, that's your prerogative, but it isn't the reality of baseball.

voodoochile
10-17-2010, 04:44 PM
Some pitchers have a knack for consistently being on the wrong side of a 1-0, 2-1, 3-2 type game; others are adept at finding ways to give up just a little less than the opposition. Absent just pedestrian stats by the bigger winner, I'm picking him.


Exactly. It's not like CC had a 4.5+ ERA, pitched 170 innings and only won because he got handed a bunch of huge run totals by an overpowering offense. Yes, he plays on a better team, but his pure stats aside from the 21 wins are also fantastic as are the other pitchers between his ERA and Hernandez.

Bob Roarman
10-17-2010, 04:44 PM
The Mariners scored the least amount of runs in the entire league. The Orioles scored 100 more runs than them. They were historically bad this year. I've gone back the past 7 years so far and have not found a team that has scored less runs than Seattle did this past season. I've only found a couple that were even in the 500 range. That's how bad they were. Almost half his starts he gave up 3 runs or less and he was either credited for a loss or a no decision. I find it amazing he even has a W-L record over .500 with that team.

voodoochile
10-17-2010, 04:46 PM
But that ONE stat, that one TEAM reflected stat, overrides EVERYTHING else? Overrides every other pitching stat that has Hernandez as the best pitcher in the league? Because you have to realize that's what you're saying here, you're ignoring a lot because of that one stat.That's not having the W-L record as merely part of the discussion, that's having the W-L record as the discussion. It's not just a small factor, it's the single most overriding factor to you. Because if it was just a small factor, it wouldn't outweigh the tons of other evidence that has him as the best in the league.

No, but again, the guy I'm touting for Cy Young had excellent peripheral stats and a stunning W-L record.

TDog
10-17-2010, 04:50 PM
The Mariners scored the least amount of runs in the entire league. The Orioles scored 100 more runs than them. They were historically bad this year. I've gone back the past 7 years so far and have not found a team that has scored less runs than Seattle did this past season. I've only found a couple that were even in the 500 range. That's how bad they were. Almost half his starts he gave up 3 runs or less and he was either credited for a loss or a no decision.

Mariners pitchers were outpitched a lot. Hernandez was outpitched a lot, although less than his teammates. He doesn't deserve the Cy Young Award. Even if this were figure skating, other judges would probably give better scores to other pitchers.

asindc
10-17-2010, 04:51 PM
Well I wasn't talking about a specific example, but I don't have a problem with CC winning the award this year. In fact just looking at the over all stats, he'd be my first choice because those 21 wins really stick out.

I do. I have one question with regard to CC vs. Felix: If you could replay the 2010 season with every variable playing out just like it did the first time, except you have CC and Felix switch teams, do you think CC still wins 21 games? Felix only 13? Looking at their respective performances, I don't see how a reasonable argument can be made that they would.

Bob Roarman
10-17-2010, 04:53 PM
As good as Sabathia's peripheral stats were, Hernandez's were better. In a few cases, Sabathia doesn't even show up. When you have a pitcher like him where in every measurable way he is shown and proved to be the best in the league EXCEPT for the W-L record because he is playing on a historically offensively challenged team rather than the league leading Yankees in offense, I don't think it's too hard to make that "exception".

Pablo_Honey
10-17-2010, 04:57 PM
Mariners pitchers were outpitched a lot. Hernandez was outpitched a lot, although less than his teammates.
It's easy to be outpitched by other teams when your offense barely gets on 30% of the time and your team's homerun leader has only 15 homeruns on the season. Hell, Dan Hudson (who, btw, can't handle AL during pennant race) could limit the Mariners to 3 runs with crap control.

He doesn't deserve the Cy Young Award. Even if this were figure skating, other judges would probably give better scores to other pitchers.
The guy who completed 6 of his games and led the league in inning totals all the while keeping the runs to a minimal DEFINITELY deserves a Cy Young.

asindc
10-17-2010, 04:59 PM
Mariners pitchers were outpitched a lot. Hernandez was outpitched a lot, although less than his teammates. He doesn't deserve the Cy Young Award. Even if this were figure skating, other judges would probably give better scores to other pitchers.

CC was outpitched more often than Felix was.

Bob Roarman
10-17-2010, 05:01 PM
Sabathia had at least 6 runs of support in 16 of his starts this season. 16. He went 12-0 in those games.

TDog
10-17-2010, 05:02 PM
CC was outpitched more often than Felix was.

And he was still a better pitcher than Hernandez.

asindc
10-17-2010, 05:07 PM
And he was still a better pitcher than Hernandez.

We simply disagree on this one. IMO, saying CC was better than Felix this year is like saying the guy who got the most saves in the league, regardless of how he actually performed. The pitcher is undoubtedly a major factor in determining who wins, but he is one of several major factors. If you put Felix on NYY this year with his performance, I believe he wins at least 21 games, most likely 2-3 more than that.

Bob Roarman
10-17-2010, 05:24 PM
And he was still a better pitcher than Hernandez.

Hernandez is number one is WPA (win probability added), base-out runs saved, base-out wins saved, situational wins saved. He's number one is adjusted pitching wins, number one in adjusted pitching runs. Ranked number one in WAR (wins above replacement) for pitchers, ranked 6th overall in MLB. But Sabathia is better?

You have to take the team into account when you say Seattle was being out-pitched a lot. Well ****, their team only scored 513 runs. They were horrible offensively. There's a +300 run difference between the Yankees and Mariners. I'd think you'd see Sabathia being "outpitched" a lot too if he played on that team.

TDog
10-17-2010, 05:26 PM
We simply disagree on this one. IMO, saying CC was better than Felix this year is like saying the guy who got the most saves in the league, regardless of how he actually performed. The pitcher is undoubtedly a major factor in determining who wins, but he is one of several major factors. If you put Felix on NYY this year with his performance, I believe he wins at least 21 games, most likely 2-3 more than that.

It really doesn't matter what a players peripheral stats are if he doesn't win and whether you want to hypothetically compare whether the pure quality essence of one pitcher's season is superior than another is, well, hypothetical. If a pitcher loses a game 1-0, you don't know if he would have lost that in another park on another day 5-4. Elemental factors can have a huge effect on a game. Last night's Phillies-Giants game, played in San Francisco with an umpire calling more close strikes might have been 2-1. Change the environmental factors and Lincecum probably still beats Halladay, which would be the constant. Maybe the Phillies are shut out. It could have been more of the pitching duel people expected.

But the biggest complaint I have against judging a pitcher on style points is that the there is something convoluted about it. Stat people tell us specific stats are important because they predict wins. When they don't predict wins for an individual who achieves such stats, the stats, people still want to believe a pitcher had, not just a great season, but the best season, regardless.

Baseball ultimately is about winning. It doesn't matter if he might have beaten the White Sox if he had stayed in to pitch the ninth (the week before the White Sox knocked him out in another game). He didn't stay in the game to pitch the ninth. You can't extrapolate his stats and say that it isn't his fault he didn't stay in to pitch the ninth. Ultimately he didn't win.

Marqhead
10-17-2010, 05:32 PM
It really doesn't matter what a players peripheral stats are if he doesn't win and whether you want to hypothetically compare whether the pure quality essence of one pitcher's season is superior than another is, well, hypothetical. If a pitcher loses a game 1-0, you don't know if he would have lost that in another park on another day 5-4. Elemental factors can have a huge effect on a game. Last night's Phillies-Giants game, played in San Francisco with an umpire calling more close strikes might have been 2-1. Change the environmental factors and Lincecum probably still beats Halladay, which would be the constant. Maybe the Phillies are shut out. It could have been more of the pitching duel people expected.

But the biggest complaint I have against judging a pitcher on style points is that the there is something convoluted about it. Stat people tell us specific stats are important because they predict wins. When they don't predict wins for an individual who achieves such stats, the stats, people still want to believe a pitcher had, not just a great season, but the best season, regardless.

Baseball ultimately is about winning. It doesn't matter if he might have beaten the White Sox if he had stayed in to pitch the ninth (the week before the White Sox knocked him out in another game). He didn't stay in the game to pitch the ninth. You can't extrapolate his stats and say that it isn't his fault he didn't stay in to pitch the ninth. Ultimately he didn't win.

Baseball is about winning, the Cy Young award is about who was the best pitcher. The two are not the same.

asindc
10-17-2010, 05:33 PM
It really doesn't matter what a players peripheral stats are if he doesn't win and whether you want to hypothetically compare whether the pure quality essence of one pitcher's season is superior than another is, well, hypothetical. If a pitcher loses a game 1-0, you don't know if he would have lost that in another park on another day 5-4. Elemental factors can have a huge effect on a game. Last night's Phillies-Giants game, played in San Francisco with an umpire calling more close strikes might have been 2-1. Change the environmental factors and Lincecum probably still beats Halladay, which would be the constant. Maybe the Phillies are shut out. It could have been more of the pitching duel people expected.

But the biggest complaint I have against judging a pitcher on style points is that the there is something convoluted about it. Stat people tell us specific stats are important because they predict wins. When they don't predict wins for an individual who achieves such stats, the stats, people still want to believe a pitcher had, not just a great season, but the best season, regardless.

Baseball ultimately is about winning. It doesn't matter if he might have beaten the White Sox if he had stayed in to pitch the ninth (the week before the White Sox knocked him out in another game). He didn't stay in the game to pitch the ninth. You can't extrapolate his stats and say that it isn't his fault he didn't stay in to pitch the ninth. Ultimately he didn't win.

I don't care what the sabrmetrics proponents say in this debate because very little of it sways me. But being bailed out several times by a lineup that averages over six runs a game when you have given up four or more runs on more occasions than your counterpart in Seattle does not make you the better pitcher. Quite the opposite, it indicates that your wins can be attributed more often to your offensive teammates bailing you out than it is to your actual performance. By the way, Felix finished more games than CC did.

Daver
10-17-2010, 05:45 PM
Hernandez is number one is WPA (win probability added), base-out runs saved, base-out wins saved, situational wins saved. He's number one is adjusted pitching wins, number one in adjusted pitching runs. Ranked number one in WAR (wins above replacement) for pitchers, ranked 6th overall in MLB. But Sabathia is better?

You have to take the team into account when you say Seattle was being out-pitched a lot. Well ****, their team only scored 513 runs. They were horrible offensively. There's a +300 run difference between the Yankees and Mariners. I'd think you'd see Sabathia being "outpitched" a lot too if he played on that team.

If you look hard enough I'm sure you can find some more made up out of thin air stats over at BP, they have lots of them that have no real basis in fact or reality.

The fact is that much like the Gold Glove gets awarded to the defensive player that has a good offensive season, the Cy Young goes to the most successful pitcher, not the best pitcher.

Bob Roarman
10-17-2010, 08:42 PM
I'd agree with you on the defensive stats, and they even go so far as to admit to it as well that it's still inconsistent with those, but not with things like WAR. Those are pretty much on the money. See this is what I'm talking about when it comes to these advanced stats. Some fans, for whatever reason, cannot even acknowledge them, like how Daver is doing, because doing so would mean changing the way you look at the game, and if you have to change that it must mean you were wrong, and no one can ever be wrong anymore these days. So they cling to "tradition". And even in the face of overwhelming evidence in the so-called traditional stats besides the W-L record, it can't be right.

It's crazy to me. It's not even close, there simply is no other pitcher that leads in all those pitching categories except for wins that Hernandez does. But because Sabathia is kinda close in some of them and he won more games (all the while ignoring the team he plays on) well just give to him, he must be better, after all, he won more right? Don't get me wrong, Sabathia is a good choice for the Cy Young. He's just not the best. And just because Gold Gloves may be given to more offensively talented players doesn't make it anymore justified or right to continue on with that BS. Everyone complains about that every year, and here we have an example, a great chance that would go against the grain....and people are still complaining. I don't get it.

Daver
10-17-2010, 09:08 PM
I'd agree with you on the defensive stats, and they even go so far as to admit to it as well that it's still inconsistent with those, but not with things like WAR. Those are pretty much on the money. See this is what I'm talking about when it comes to these advanced stats. Some fans, for whatever reason, cannot even acknowledge them, like how Daver is doing, because doing so would mean changing the way you look at the game, and if you have to change that it must mean you were wrong, and no one can ever be wrong anymore these days. So they cling to "tradition". And even in the face of overwhelming evidence in the so-called traditional stats besides the W-L record, it can't be right.


On the money compared to what?

When you start citing stats that are made up to prove one single point there is no offsetting stat to debate it, but it does not change the fact that it is a number created using a contrived formula to achieve that specific number and nothing else.

Much like the save and the hold stat, they are worthless for most intents and purposes, unless you need something to negotiate a contract on.

voodoochile
10-17-2010, 09:32 PM
What about park factor? Isn't Seattle one of the most pitcher friendly parks in the majors? Don't they have a bunch of extremely good defenders in the OF (in particular)? This is as I recall, I admit I didn't look it up.

Does that factor into the equation at all?

CC pitched in a much more pressure filled situation too. All Hernandez had to do was throw the ball from May on. He didn't have to worry about anything but his stats because the team wasn't going anywhere. The Yankees on the other hand were in a tooth and nail fight in the toughest division in baseball for most of the season.

Just to take that one step further. Might CC's numbers be better if he'd been able to pitch in the ALW instead of the ALE? Might Hernandez numbers be worse if he had to face Boston, Toronto and Tampa 17 times apiece this year?

For all the sabermetric opining in this thread why are these basic premises being overlooked? Feel free to correct my park stuff if I am indeed wrong, but you folks are yelling about stats and even some BP stats that most people have no idea what they mean and ignoring these other factors. Methinks me smells a rat...

voodoochile
10-17-2010, 09:44 PM
Just to put those numbers into comparison here's the AL team batting stats sorted by runs. Note the top 6 teams contain 4 from the ALE (including the Yankees).

Note that only Texas from the ALW is listed and is behind both Boston and Tampa.

Note that the Angels (with the second most runs in the ALW) scored 74 runs less than Toronto and well over 100 less than both Boston and Tampa.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/seasontype/2/league/al

You want to break this thing down that way. Factor this stuff in too because pitchers don't pitch in a vacuum and CC faced a much tougher schedule this year than King Felix. In fact it's such a ridiculous difference that not factoring it in would be a disservice to propeller heads everywhere... :tongue:

Edit: Man that's a huge drop between Detroit and LAAAAA. It's like falling off a cliff. Heck, Baltimore (the worst team in the ALE by a wide margin) had the same OPS as LAAAA.

Craig Grebeck
10-17-2010, 10:01 PM
Just to put those numbers into comparison here's the AL team batting stats sorted by runs. Note the top 6 teams contain 4 from the ALE (including the Yankees).

Note that only Texas from the ALW is listed and is behind both Boston and Tampa.

Note that the Angels (with the second most runs in the ALW) scored 74 runs less than Toronto and well over 100 less than both Boston and Tampa.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/seasontype/2/league/al

You want to break this thing down that way. Factor this stuff in too because pitchers don't pitch in a vacuum and CC faced a much tougher schedule this year than King Felix. In fact it's such a ridiculous difference that not factoring it in would be a disservice to propeller heads everywhere... :tongue:

Edit: Man that's a huge drop between Detroit and LAAAAA. It's like falling off a cliff. Heck, Baltimore (the worst team in the ALE by a wide margin) had the same OPS as LAAAA.
Felix made 34 starts against teams that collectively scored 24,758 runs. That equates to 4.49 runs per game.

CC made 34 starts against teams that collectively scored 23,679 runs. That equates to 4.30 runs per game.

You were saying?

Also, regarding park factor: Felix had a 174 ERA+, CC had a 134 ERA+. There goes park factor.

Defense: Felix had a lower FIP and xFIP. So, yeah, there goes defense too.

CC won more games because he had a better offense behind him. Plain and simple.

voodoochile
10-17-2010, 10:03 PM
Felix made 34 starts against teams that collectively scored 24,758 runs. That equates to 4.49 runs per game.


CC made 34 starts against teams that collectively scored 23,679 runs. That equates to 4.30 runs per game.

You were saying?



Doesn't mean much becuse it ignores the park factor and the number of games against above average or great offensive teams. Too simplistic approach basically.

Edit: How many runs did he give up against the good teams and how many did he give up against the weak teams?

Craig Grebeck
10-17-2010, 10:07 PM
Doesn't mean much becuse it ignores the park factor and the number of games against above average or great offensive teams. Too simplistic approach basically.

Edit: How many runs did he give up against the good teams and how many did he give up against the weak teams?
We'll just take the Yankees as a great team Felix faced:

3 GS, 2 CG, 26 IP, 31 K, 16 H, 1 ER, 8 BB.

Edit: Are you really criticizing someone for too simplistic of an approach when you're willing to put wins (for a pitcher) basically above all else? What?

Craig Grebeck
10-17-2010, 10:09 PM
They both had good seasons. No one is disputing that -- it's just that one of them (Felix) was clearly better than the other in every meaningful, measurable way. Ergo, he was the best pitcher. Plain, simple, easy.

Milw
10-17-2010, 10:14 PM
If a pitcher is outpitched by the opposition in a substantial number of games, I don't see how anyone could consider him the pitcher in the league who had the best season. Unless you look at baseball as one might look at figure skating. If you want to give Felix Hernandez a 10 for losing 1-0, that's your prerogative, but it isn't the reality of baseball.
If a pitcher loses 2-1 due to a couple unearned runs, did he really get outpitched?

If a pitcher wins 7-6, does it really mean much to say he outpitched his competition?

It's not at all a stretch to assume that had Felix not gotten the worst run support in the league all year that he would have won several more games and lost several fewer. So how one can effectively downgrade Felix's pitching performance due to the lack of hitting by his teammates is mindboggling.

voodoochile
10-17-2010, 10:16 PM
Except wins and again to me wins matter. I believe it's one of the fundamental stats for the award.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying CC is my guy for the Cy Young award, merely that he's in the running. I also believe Price, Bucholtz or even Cahill deserve consideration simply based on their stats. In fact I'd think given how bad Oakland was this year offensively, Cahill's 18 wins really stick out.

Pablo_Honey
10-17-2010, 10:17 PM
What about park factor? Isn't Seattle one of the most pitcher friendly parks in the majors? Don't they have a bunch of extremely good defenders in the OF (in particular)? This is as I recall, I admit I didn't look it up.
Yes, Felix posted better numbers at home but surprinsingly, so did Sabathia. So it's a bit of a wash. Now you could say that CC did better because he pitched well at a tougher homepark but both guys got a chance to pitch on the road and Felix didn't do shabby on the road at all.

CC pitched in a much more pressure filled situation too. All Hernandez had to do was throw the ball from May on. He didn't have to worry about anything but his stats because the team wasn't going anywhere. The Yankees on the other hand were in a tooth and nail fight in the toughest division in baseball for most of the season.
Ugh, this is the thing that pretty much divided people into pro-Hudson and anti-Hudson and we all know how that debate turned out (it never went anywhere) so I'd rather not discuss the effect of pennant race on pitchers not named Javy Vazquez.

Just to take that one step further. Might CC's numbers be better if he'd been able to pitch in the ALW instead of the ALE? Might Hernandez numbers be worse if he had to face Boston, Toronto and Tampa 17 times apiece this year?
Both CC and Felix faced the Jays once and dominated. CC faced the Rays and the Orioles the most - 5 and 6 games respectively - and neither team is really all that special offensively. Sabathia did have to face the Red Sox four times - he struggled twice and dominated twice. Felix faced the Sawx once and dominated, so it's possible that he could have done about the same with the Sawx had he been given the chance. Now, Felix did choke against Rangers and Angels early in the season but back then, both teams were still in postseason hunt and the Rangers were especially playing hot. Anyway, there's more way to look at it but people don't really account for it because it's too much of a hassle to look it up.

voodoochile
10-17-2010, 10:19 PM
Both CC and Felix faced the Jays once and dominated. CC faced the Rays and the Orioles the most - 5 and 6 games respectively - and neither team is really all that special offensively. Sabathia did have to face the Red Sox four times - he struggled twice and dominated twice. Felix faced the Sawx once and dominated, so it's possible that he could have done about the same with the Sawx had he been given the chance. Now, Felix did choke against Rangers and Angels early in the season but back then, both teams were still in postseason hunt and the Rangers were especially playing hot. Anyway, there's more way to look at it but people don't really account for it because it's too much of a hassle to look it up.

The Rays were third in the AL in runs scored and one of three teams to crack 800 this year.

Daver
10-17-2010, 10:20 PM
If a pitcher loses 2-1 due to a couple unearned runs, did he really get outpitched?


Were the unearned runs due to a sympathetic scorer?

Or were they two walks that scored on a double?

How much into minutia do you really want to go?

Milw
10-17-2010, 10:23 PM
Were the unearned runs due to a sympathetic scorer?

Or were they two walks that scored on a double?

How much into minutia do you really want to go?
The whole point is that W-L doesn't tell the whole story. I'm not saying that ERA does either, or any other stat. They need to be all taken together and looked at as a package. But that's the whole point: Discounting a pitcher because of a mediocre W-L record or lauding a pitcher because of a great W-L record is no more fair than looking at just ERA or just K:BB. Look at the whole story.

Daver
10-17-2010, 10:32 PM
The whole point is that W-L doesn't tell the whole story. I'm not saying that ERA does either, or any other stat. They need to be all taken together and looked at as a package. But that's the whole point: Discounting a pitcher because of a mediocre W-L record or lauding a pitcher because of a great W-L record is no more fair than looking at just ERA or just K:BB. Look at the whole story.

The whole point is that numbers can be contrived to achieve any result you want, BP thrives on it, but perception is reality, and the best pitcher at the end of the season is the one with the most success, not the one that looked good in a losing effort.

Milw
10-17-2010, 10:41 PM
The whole point is that numbers can be contrived to achieve any result you want, BP thrives on it, but perception is reality, and the best pitcher at the end of the season is the one with the most success, not the one that looked good in a losing effort.
By that reasoning, Freddy Garcia (12-6) was the best pitcher on the White Sox this year. Better than Mark Buehrle (13-13). Much better than Gavin Floyd (10-13). And depending whether you go with raw wins or winning percentage, you could argue that he was better than John Danks (15-11).

Nothing against Freddy's season, but you're sure you want to stand by that?

Pablo_Honey
10-17-2010, 10:44 PM
The Rays were third in the AL in runs scored and one of three teams to crack 800 this year.
Really? Wow, I'm surprised. I just looked at the numbers by starters at each position and all I saw were a bunch of no contact, no patience and/or no power guys aside from Longo and Crawford. Pitch well to those two, and a pitcher can probably easily cruise through.

Daver
10-17-2010, 10:46 PM
By that reasoning, Freddy Garcia (12-6) was the best pitcher on the White Sox this year. Better than Mark Buehrle (13-13). Much better than Gavin Floyd (10-13). And depending whether you go with raw wins or winning percentage, you could argue that he was better than John Danks (15-11).

Nothing against Freddy's season, but you're sure you want to stand by that?

How many wins did did he have after a losing streak of two or more?

That is a more telling number than any contrived stat can tell.

Saying Freddy was the best pitcher on the staff is not something I would argue against, except to note the number of starts he missed.

Milw
10-17-2010, 10:52 PM
How many wins did did he have after a losing streak of two or more?

That is a more telling number than any contrived stat can tell.

Saying Freddy was the best pitcher on the staff is not something I would argue against, except to note the number of starts he missed.
So ERA is a contrived stat, but "wins after losing streaks" is a legit one? Oh lord. OK.

Daver
10-17-2010, 11:01 PM
So ERA is a contrived stat, but "wins after losing streaks" is a legit one? Oh lord. OK.


Propellerheads always have a tough time dealing with reality.

Bob Roarman
10-17-2010, 11:04 PM
Doesn't mean much becuse it ignores the park factor and the number of games against above average or great offensive teams. Too simplistic approach basically.

Edit: How many runs did he give up against the good teams and how many did he give up against the weak teams?

Well okay, park factor. The stat for that is Adjusted ERA+. It adjusts a pitcher's ERA according to the pitcher's ballpark (in case the ballpark favors hitters or pitchers) and the ERA of the pitcher's league. Average ERA+ is set to be 100; a score above 100 indicates that the pitcher performed better than average, below 100 indicates worse than average. The higher the number the better.

Hernandez had 174, which is second best behind Buchholz at 187. Sabathia is tied for 6th with 134.


Are you really criticizing someone for too simplistic of an approach when you're willing to put wins (for a pitcher) basically above all else? What?

That's what really gets me too. It's hilarious because they want it both ways at the same time. You can throw out all these advanced stats out there that are in depth on lots of different factors and how Hernandez is tops in the league in almost all of them, but it's no good because it's complicated. It's "made up" as good ole' Daver says.

So okay, back to simple language. But then when you go with the simple routine to dispel false assumptions over the opposition he faced like you just did, it's "too simple" and you gotta have something more meaty than that. And then when you go back to advanced stats to explain it, it's the same old song and dance about how it's being elitist or too contrived. It's like a carousel of bull**** with these people, it keeps going 'round and 'round.

Bob Roarman
10-17-2010, 11:11 PM
The whole point is that numbers can be contrived to achieve any result you want, BP thrives on it, but perception is reality, and the best pitcher at the end of the season is the one with the most success, not the one that looked good in a losing effort.

Using one or two of those advanced stats as proof of a pitcher being the best is one thing, but when he is consistently at the top of almost all of them, including the "traditional" stats outside of W-L record, I think that paints a pretty complete picture of what kind of pitcher he was (pun not intended....well maybe).

Milw
10-17-2010, 11:16 PM
Propellerheads always have a tough time dealing with reality.
I know, earned run average and strikeouts and innings pitched are pretty "out there" stats. I guess those are just too newfangled to get much mainstream respect. :rolleyes:

TDog
10-18-2010, 01:02 AM
Baseball is about winning, the Cy Young award is about who was the best pitcher. The two are not the same.

Actually, the Cy Young award used to be about winning games, too. Being the best pitcher, for that matter, is about winning games, not piling up stats that look good before you lose or leave the game without a decision.

Craig Grebeck
10-18-2010, 01:07 AM
Actually, the Cy Young award used to be about winning games, too. Being the best pitcher, for that matter, is about winning games, not piling up stats that look good before you lose or leave the game without a decision.
All of which ignores circumstance altogether. Wins are, in this case, incidental. Do they often show that a pitcher was able to gut it out and finish games? Of course. Would a lesser pitcher than CC have won 21 games on the Yankees? No. Does that mean he was better than Felix? No.

Bob Roarman
10-18-2010, 02:04 AM
Actually, the Cy Young award used to be about winning games, too. Being the best pitcher, for that matter, is about winning games, not piling up stats that look good before you lose or leave the game without a decision.

I'm going to try and lay this out as simple as possible. You don't seem to understand the difference between a great player pitching on a team that's scored 300 less runs than a great player pitching for the Yankees.

CC Sabathia had 16 games where he got at least 6 runs of support. He went 12-0 in those starts. Let's throw out the 4 no decisions, everyone has bad games or bad luck or whatever. He has 12 wins in those games. That's one less win than Hernandez had all season.

Now you don't think, with an offense as historically bad as Seattle's was this year, that if they are just a little better, a little closer to simply league average, that Hernandez's W-L record doesn't improve at all with what he already had achieved with that horrible offense? Because it seems that would've been enough for a lot of people here against him winning the Cy Young, if only his W-L record was better.

And I don't want to hear about pressure situations and the argument for that, we just had a Cy Young winner last year that played for the Kansas City Royals in a division where 85 victories was enough to win the title. No one complained then, because he was simply the best pitcher in the league and he was a great story, albeit with a better W-L record, but on a team that also scored over a 100 more runs than this year's M's did. And guess who the runner up was that year in the AL? Why, Felix Hernandez. With a more potent/average offense behind him, scoring well over 100 more runs than this year, he won 19 games (3 more than Grienke), with less impressive individual stats across the board compared to this year as well.

You think just maybe, maaaaayyyybeee, if the M's weren't as historically challenged on offense and getting on base that Felix may have fared just a bit better in the W-L column? I don't know, just throwing that wild idea out there. I know I'm really going out on a limb with it, but I'm just testing the waters.

asindc
10-18-2010, 08:41 AM
Since no one has answered a question that I asked earlier in this thread, I'll repeat it here:

If you could replay the 2010 season with every variable playing out just like it did the first time, except you have CC and Felix switch teams, do you think CC still wins 21 games? Felix only 13?

Oblong
10-18-2010, 11:16 AM
I don't understand the "run up the stats" argument. This is baseball, not basketball where you can go down and dunk when your team is up by 30 with 1:28 to play. In baseball you still pitch to the guy you face, you still try to get him out. And if you are a hitter, you try to get on base. You don't ease up just beause the game "doesn't mean anything". There's no holding on to the ball or taking a knee once the game's "over before it's over".

For simplicity, just look at the 2010 Game Logs for each guy:

Felix (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?n1=hernafe02&t=p&year=2010)

CC (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?n1=sabatc.01&t=p&year=2010)

Since the argument is about one guy on a losing team, I like to look at teh games that the pitcher either lost or got a no decision to see what he can reasonably be blamed for. And for the guy on the winning team look at his wins and see if any were of the '7-6' variety.

CC's ERA in his wins is 1.97.
Felix's ERA in his losses and no decisions is 3.51.

I know what I said earlier about ERA being deceiving but without going through each game in detail I know of no other way to do this for now. BUt I think this is enough to dispel the notion that CC was the beneficiary of a great offense. In fact, in only one win did he give up more than 3 runs, earned or unearned. Agains the Sox. NYY won 12-9.

voodoochile
10-18-2010, 12:05 PM
Since no one has answered a question that I asked earlier in this thread, I'll repeat it here:

If you could replay the 2010 season with every variable playing out just like it did the first time, except you have CC and Felix switch teams, do you think CC still wins 21 games? Felix only 13?

Probably not but I wouldn't be surprised if Felix's stats are a lot worse and CC's were better.

Milw
10-18-2010, 12:10 PM
Probably not but I wouldn't be surprised if Felix's stats are a lot worse and CC's were better.
Since you seem transfixed with W-L records being the most important stat, the relevant point that you passively admit is that CC's record would probably be worse with the Mariners and that Felix's record would probably be better with the Yankees. That realization alone should be enough to diminish the importance of W-L in evaluating a pitcher's overall performance.

happydude
10-18-2010, 12:11 PM
Since no one has answered a question that I asked earlier in this thread, I'll repeat it here:

If you could replay the 2010 season with every variable playing out just like it did the first time, except you have CC and Felix switch teams, do you think CC still wins 21 games? Felix only 13?

It may be that under your scenario Sabathia would have won less and Felix more; based on the other numbers, its at least highly likely that Hernandez would have won more. The problem is its entirely speculative. The game isn't played by plugging numbers into a formula and coming out with a result; no matter how likely the result would have been it can never be more than, at best, a probability.

Awards are based on what actually happened; not what may have happened given this or given that. And what actually happened is that Sabathia won more games than anyone else and had great numbers in the "peripherals" as well. And, in my view, any differences in peripherals are easily made up for by the disparity in wins between the two; 8 more wins is significant and that's an understatement. With a 13-12 record, I wouldn't even vote Hernandez second.

Like it or not, pitchers are credited with wins and losses; its their signature stat and, rightly, is given more credence than other stats because its the one most closely aligned with the ultimate goal of the team and the purpose of the game. The other stats seem to me to be merely evaluative factors of how good a pitcher is, or should be, at moving his team closer to the goal of winning; winning is the trump stat.

Assuming Hernandez would have won more games on a better club, should then his prospects for an individual award be hampered by factors which can be said to be out of his control? It happens all the time in sports, doesn't it? The players rewarded for singular performance, for the most part, have always seemed to be the ones who are deemed to be more affiliated with collective success than other individually successful competitors.

Had Sabathia or Price gotten wins but were merely average in the stats where Felix is King, giving him serious consideration would be appropriate. But that didn't happen and, in my view, at best he's third; a distant third, at that.

asindc
10-18-2010, 12:28 PM
It may be that under your scenario Sabathia would have won less and Felix more; based on the other numbers, its at least highly likely that Hernandez would have won more. The problem is its entirely speculative. The game isn't played by plugging numbers into a formula and coming out with a result; no matter how likely the result would have been it can never be more than, at best, a probability.

Awards are based on what actually happened; not what may have happened given this or given that. And what actually happened is that Sabathia won more games than anyone else and had great numbers in the "peripherals" as well. And, in my view, any differences in peripherals are easily made up for by the disparity in wins between the two; 8 more wins is significant and that's an understatement. With a 13-12 record, I wouldn't even vote Hernandez second.

Like it or not, pitchers are credited with wins and losses; its their signature stat and, rightly, is given more credence than other stats because its the one most closely aligned with the ultimate goal of the team and the purpose of the game. The other stats seem to me to be merely evaluative factors of how good a pitcher is, or should be, at moving his team closer to the goal of winning; winning is the trump stat.

Assuming Hernandez would have won more games on a better club, should then his prospects for an individual award be hampered by factors which can be said to be out of his control? It happens all the time in sports, doesn't it? The players rewarded for singular performance, for the most part, have always seemed to be the ones who are deemed to be more affiliated with collective success than other individually successful competitors.

Had Sabathia or Price gotten wins but were merely average in the stats where Felix is King, giving him serious consideration would be appropriate. But that didn't happen and, in my view, at best he's third; a distant third, at that.

Yes it does, and I don't think it should happen at all.

voodoochile
10-18-2010, 12:35 PM
Since you seem transfixed with W-L records being the most important stat, the relevant point that you passively admit is that CC's record would probably be worse with the Mariners and that Felix's record would probably be better with the Yankees. That realization alone should be enough to diminish the importance of W-L in evaluating a pitcher's overall performance.


I have never once said that W-L is the most important stat, but that it is a stat that matters. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Go ahead, link the post where I said that.

Reading is a skill. I'm not attempting to soundbite your posts and I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

voodoochile
10-18-2010, 12:37 PM
Okay and to turn this back around do people think that Felix would have had those same stats pitching in NY or that CC's wouldn't have been even better pitching in Seattle?

If so doesn't that reduce the "amazing stats trump all" argument?

Craig Grebeck
10-18-2010, 12:38 PM
I have never once said that W-L is the most important stat, but that it is a stat that matters. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Go ahead, link the post where I said that.

Reading is a skill. I'm not attempting to soundbite your posts and I'd appreciate the same courtesy.
It's pretty easy to infer that from your line of argument. Also, the poster in question said "Since you seem transfixed...".

Since when is that "putting words" in someone's mouth? Honestly, you do seem transfixed on W-L (being more important). Just like I seem transfixed on other statistics (being more important).

Craig Grebeck
10-18-2010, 12:41 PM
Okay and to turn this back around do people think that Felix would have had those same stats pitching in NY or that CC's wouldn't have been even better pitching in Seattle?

If so doesn't that reduce the "amazing stats trump all" argument?
I don't know what you're getting at. Is this about park factor (again)? Because the park argument was somewhat mitigated by Felix's gigantic lead in ERA+. Is this about defense? Because, again, Felix led in FIP and xFIP. Is this about pressure? That argument is perhaps the most puzzling of all. MLB players are MLB players, and, honestly, if I'm CC, I probably feel a load off my back knowing I've got the best lineup in MLB.

voodoochile
10-18-2010, 12:52 PM
I don't know what you're getting at. Is this about park factor (again)? Because the park argument was somewhat mitigated by Felix's gigantic lead in ERA+. Is this about defense? Because, again, Felix led in FIP and xFIP. Is this about pressure? That argument is perhaps the most puzzling of all. MLB players are MLB players, and, honestly, if I'm CC, I probably feel a load off my back knowing I've got the best lineup in MLB.

Have any of those stats actually been tested to prove them mean something? I'm always skeptical of the logic behind accepting stats at face value just because someone says they are correct. Have they been peer reviewed by independent external sources or did some guy come up with a formula and now it's accepted as gospel?

It's also about pressure. Pitching in NY compared to SEA is different and there's not a stat in the world that can evaluate it. Pitching for a full season under pennant race conditions compared to pitching for a team that was in the words of some of the posters "historically bad" is different. Better offense or not, pitching for the Yankees is living your life in a fishbowl with a huge microscope looking in on you. Pitching for SEA is well... it just isn't the same. Price and Bucholtz also pitched under much tougher conditions than Felix did because of the stress of pitching under conditions where ever win mattered.

You also didn't answer the question. Do you think Felix would have posted all of the same numbers pitching in NY this season? Or Tampa? Or Boston?

It's pretty easy to infer that from your line of argument. Also, the poster in question said "Since you seem transfixed...".

Since when is that "putting words" in someone's mouth? Honestly, you do seem transfixed on W-L (being more important). Just like I seem transfixed on other statistics (being more important).

Well that's what the argument is centering around. I have never once said that Wins are the single most important stat, but on the other side of the coin, the guys arguing for Felix have completely dismissed them as being relevant. One even went so far as to say that if Felix were 9-15 he'd still consider him for the award.

I have repeatedly said that I don't think wins are the only factor but that they should be (and to me ARE) A factor.

Edit: I merged my two replies to make it simpler to keep the conversation flowing

TDog
10-18-2010, 01:56 PM
All of which ignores circumstance altogether. Wins are, in this case, incidental. Do they often show that a pitcher was able to gut it out and finish games? Of course. Would a lesser pitcher than CC have won 21 games on the Yankees? No. Does that mean he was better than Felix? No.

A pitcher who does not have the opportunity to win games should not be given preference over a pitcher who actually went out and won those games given the opportunity. Hernandez probably deserved the award last year, but he doesn't deserve the award this year.

Bob Roarman
10-18-2010, 04:18 PM
Have any of those stats actually been tested to prove them mean something? I'm always skeptical of the logic behind accepting stats at face value just because someone says they are correct. Have they been peer reviewed by independent external sources or did some guy come up with a formula and now it's accepted as gospel?

It's also about pressure. Pitching in NY compared to SEA is different and there's not a stat in the world that can evaluate it. Pitching for a full season under pennant race conditions compared to pitching for a team that was in the words of some of the posters "historically bad" is different. Better offense or not, pitching for the Yankees is living your life in a fishbowl with a huge microscope looking in on you. Pitching for SEA is well... it just isn't the same. Price and Bucholtz also pitched under much tougher conditions than Felix did because of the stress of pitching under conditions where ever win mattered.

You also didn't answer the question. Do you think Felix would have posted all of the same numbers pitching in NY this season? Or Tampa? Or Boston?




And yet the crux of this entire argument for you seems to be immensely based on "What if" situations and on the one stat that is the most team oriented, the most that depends on the type of team you have, the W-L record. You say things like this and it's hard to take you seriously. Find me the team that's scored less runs than the Mariners did this year. Please, because I've gone back as far as the MLB site goes in standings (7 years) and I haven't found that team. So going on 7,8,9 maybe 10 years, yeah I'd say that's a historically bad offense they had.

And on pitching in New York vs. Seattle, we just had an AL Cy Young winner last year that played for the Royals in (that year) the weakest division of the AL, arguably the entire MLB. I don't want to hear that argument ever again. Felix Hernandez that year was the runner up, and the Mariners were decent, they were at least somewhat in the race up to a certain point, and he won 19 games for them. But his stats, and the advanced stats, weren't as good as Grienke's, some of which have him as one of the greatest pitching performances of the last 10 years or so, you'd probably have to go back to Pedro in 00'. And everyone knew, even though he pitched in every game knowing it wouldn't really matter, that the Royals weren't going anywhere, that he was the best pitcher in the game.

You cannot judge a player on what he would've done playing for another team, it's not fair, it's not measurable, we're never going to know. That goes both ways, for Sabathia and Hernandez, it's not fair to either of them. You go on what you can measure and analyze and draw your conclusions from those.

voodoochile
10-18-2010, 04:39 PM
And yet the crux of this entire argument for you seems to be immensely based on "What if" situations and on the one stat that is the most team oriented, the most that depends on the type of team you have, the W-L record. You say things like this and it's hard to take you seriously. Find me the team that's scored less runs than the Mariners did this year. Please, because I've gone back as far as the MLB site goes in standings (7 years) and I haven't found that team. So going on 7,8,9 maybe 10 years, yeah I'd say that's a historically bad offense they had.

And on pitching in New York vs. Seattle, we just had an AL Cy Young winner last year that played for the Royals in (that year) the weakest division of the AL, arguably the entire MLB. I don't want to hear that argument ever again. Felix Hernandez that year was the runner up, and the Mariners were decent, they were at least somewhat in the race up to a certain point, and he won 19 games for them. But his stats, and the advanced stats, weren't as good as Grienke's, some of which have him as one of the greatest pitching performances of the last 10 years or so, you'd probably have to go back to Pedro in 00'. And everyone knew, even though he pitched in every game knowing it wouldn't really matter, that the Royals weren't going anywhere, that he was the best pitcher in the game.

You cannot judge a player on what he would've done playing for another team, it's not fair, it's not measurable, we're never going to know. That goes both ways, for Sabathia and Hernandez, it's not fair to either of them. You go on what you can measure and analyze and draw your conclusions from those.

You actually kind of make the point. Greinke won the award not just with spectacular numbers, but with an impressive W/L ratio on a team that finished 1 win better than the worst team in the league - 32 games under .500 with the second least amount of runs scored and by far the worst run differential in the AL.

I'm not moving the goal posts here - you are. I have been very clear about my expectations. Good/great W/L record and excellent peripheral stats. Those are my main qualifications. Felix doesn't qualify on the W/L record this year. Last year he would have, but the voters picked a guy who had probably the best statistical season of any pitcher and won 2/3 of his decisions.

Again, I'm not arguing that Felix doesn't deserve the award because he played for Seattle. I'm arguing he doesn't deserve it because his W/L record isn't impressive enough. People then made the discussion about whether it would have been impressive enough if he had played in NY and I countered with whether his stats would have been that impressive playing in a pressure cooker environment all season. These are actually mutually exclusive arguments. If the situation were reversed (Felix had worse peripheral stats than CC but a much more impressive W/L record), I'd be arguing for Felix to get the award.

But arguing about what Felix would have done in NY and CC would have done in SEA is simply for ****s and giggles. None of us know. I merely want to see consistency from the people who are trying to turn this thing around.

Felix probably would have had more wins pitching in NY than he did pitching for SEA.

BUT CC probably would have had better peripheral stats pitching for SEA than he did for NY, IMO.

If you want to argue that the wins don't matter because of the team than is it consistent to argue that the stats do matter when they probably would have changed too?

PKalltheway
10-18-2010, 09:42 PM
It's also about pressure. Pitching in NY compared to SEA is different and there's not a stat in the world that can evaluate it. Pitching for a full season under pennant race conditions compared to pitching for a team that was in the words of some of the posters "historically bad" is different. Better offense or not, pitching for the Yankees is living your life in a fishbowl with a huge microscope looking in on you. Pitching for SEA is well... it just isn't the same. Price and Bucholtz also pitched under much tougher conditions than Felix did because of the stress of pitching under conditions where ever win mattered.


I'd have to agree with this. Felix certainly had a great year, but something has to be said about putting up great numbers playing in the toughest place to play in baseball (the Yankees) as well as the toughest division in baseball (the AL East). A good portion of Sabathia's starts came against three of the best lineups in the American League in Tampa Bay (802 runs scored, third in the AL), Boston (818 runs scored, second in the AL) and Toronto (755 runs scored, sixth in the AL). The Blue Jays also hit 257 home runs as a team, which tied for the third most in MLB history.

Meanwhile, the teams Hernandez faced more often than not were not nearly as good. While it certainly isn't his fault, it would help lend credence to the argument that he put up his numbers in pressure-less situations. Even though the Rangers were good this year (their 787 runs were good for fourth in the AL), the Angels and A's were not (their 681 and 663 runs scored were good for 9th and 11th in the AL respectively).

In short, what I'm saying is that while Hernandez had a great season on a bad team that shouldn't be ignored, you can't discredit what CC has done in a more pressure-filled environment. He was up to the challenge, and besides, 20-game winners aren't exactly common these days. What "King Felix" has done with one of the worst lineups in baseball behind him wasn't easy, but CC pitching for the New York Yankees, even if they do have a great lineup, isn't exactly easy either.

Moses_Scurry
10-18-2010, 11:26 PM
Where does Cliff Lee's game rank in this system? Notice that he will be denied a complete game, not for anything he did wrong, but because he had the misfortune of his team scoring six runs in the top of the ninth.

Daver
10-18-2010, 11:30 PM
Where does Cliff Lee's game rank in this system? Notice that he will be denied a complete game, not for anything he did wrong, but because he had the misfortune of his team scoring six runs in the top of the ninth.

It can't be answered without debating the speculation of how he would have faired if he was pitching against the Rangers.

Moses_Scurry
10-18-2010, 11:36 PM
It can't be answered without debating the speculation of how he would have faired if he was pitching against the Rangers.

How many more complete games and strikeout filled, ERA-lowering scoreless innings would C.C. have had if it weren't for his pesky offense scoring so many runs?

Huisj
10-19-2010, 01:07 AM
On the money compared to what?

When you start citing stats that are made up to prove one single point there is no offsetting stat to debate it, but it does not change the fact that it is a number created using a contrived formula to achieve that specific number and nothing else.

Much like the save and the hold stat, they are worthless for most intents and purposes, unless you need something to negotiate a contract on.

Here's a problem though--assigning a Win or a Loss to just a pitcher is a contrived thing in itself, isn't it? I suppose that back when pitchers pitched complete games all the time, it made a little bit more sense. But really, a real win is what a team gets as the result of the contributions of all the players. A statistical win is what a pitcher gets when he reaches a certain set of criteria in a game, some of them determined by things he is not involved in.

A pitcher can't get a win without his defense doing their job, nor can he get a win without the offense doing their job. Why then does all the weight of this Win/Loss credit go to the pitcher? Sure, the pitcher is often intimately involved with the outcome of the game, but still, how is the made-up rule that awards a win to a starting pitcher (5+ IP, leave with a lead, etc.) any less contrived than the rule for awarding a save? In an age where complete games are so rare and specialized bullpen usage is so common, wins for a starter seem to be a contrived stat.

Milw
10-19-2010, 09:50 AM
Here's a problem though--assigning a Win or a Loss to just a pitcher is a contrived thing in itself, isn't it? I suppose that back when pitchers pitched complete games all the time, it made a little bit more sense. But really, a real win is what a team gets as the result of the contributions of all the players. A statistical win is what a pitcher gets when he reaches a certain set of criteria in a game, some of them determined by things he is not involved in.

A pitcher can't get a win without his defense doing their job, nor can he get a win without the offense doing their job. Why then does all the weight of this Win/Loss credit go to the pitcher? Sure, the pitcher is often intimately involved with the outcome of the game, but still, how is the made-up rule that awards a win to a starting pitcher (5+ IP, leave with a lead, etc.) any less contrived than the rule for awarding a save? In an age where complete games are so rare and specialized bullpen usage is so common, wins for a starter seem to be a contrived stat.
This.

TDog
10-19-2010, 12:46 PM
Where does Cliff Lee's game rank in this system? Notice that he will be denied a complete game, not for anything he did wrong, but because he had the misfortune of his team scoring six runs in the top of the ninth.

If the score had been 2-0, he would have gone out to finish the game. He might have lost. He might have tired out by that point and given up the lead. He got the win because by the time the Yankees came up for the ninth, it was a sloppy loss. The fact that he came out after eight shutout innings preserved his peripheral stats while he was assured a win. As it turned out, he deserved the win and Pettitte deserved the loss. You might argue that Pettitte didn't deserve the loss if you look only at his stats, but he clearly didn't pitch well enough to win under the circumstances facing him and his team.

There is an ERA crown. There is a strikeout crown. Tim Lincecum won his third straight strikeout crown this year, but he won't win his third straight Cy Young award because he lost too many games. There have been hitters who haven't won the MVP after leading the league in batting average, on base percentage AND home runs. There have been plenty to pitchers who haven't won the Cy Young award after leading the league in ERA. Buzz Capra led the league in ERA and went 16-8, and he ninth in the voting. Diego Segui didn't get any Cy Young votes, not even a third-place vote, the year he led the AL in ERA.

In the end, the award will go to the pitcher the voting baseball writers believe is most worthy according to their definition of the award. The definition isn't as vague as it is for the Rookie of the Year. Traditionally, it has been an award primarily about winning games because, hypothetical scenarios notwithstanding, the pitchers who win a lot of games generally earn their wins, if they are lucky to get a couple when they didn't pitch so well, that's balanced out by the games where they pitched well-enough to win.

Postseason awards are not about statistics in a vacuum.

Bob Roarman
10-19-2010, 03:16 PM
Lincecum isn't going to win it, but it's not because he didn't win enough games or lost too many games. This year he was 16-10, last year 15-7. A whopping 2 game swing decides the award for him? No, it's because his stats aren't what they were last year. Like Hernandez, he was tops in a lot of the more advanced stats the past 2 years running. This year, not so much.

doublem23
10-19-2010, 03:32 PM
Lincecum isn't going to win it, but it's not because he didn't win enough games or lost too many games. This year he was 16-10, last year 15-7. A whopping 2 game swing decides the award for him? No, it's because his stats aren't what they were last year. Like Hernandez, he was tops in a lot of the more advanced stats the past 2 years running. This year, not so much.

Also, Roy Halladay wasn't in the NL last year. Put Doc's 2009 AL stats in the NL and he wins the 2009 NL Cy Young.

Daver
10-19-2010, 05:44 PM
Here's a problem though--assigning a Win or a Loss to just a pitcher is a contrived thing in itself, isn't it?

I never said it wasn't, baseball is a team sport. I think I did post in this very thread that much like a Gold Glove often goes to the position player that had a good offensive year, the Cy Young is often going to go to the pitcher that had the most successful season.

The BBWA is never going to award anything based on pure statistical data, not only because all numbers can be made to lie, but because when all is said and done individual awards in a team sport are based on success.

Milw
10-19-2010, 05:59 PM
I never said it wasn't, baseball is a team sport. I think I did post in this very thread that much like a Gold Glove often goes to the position player that had a good offensive year, the Cy Young is often going to go to the pitcher that had the most successful season.

The BBWA is never going to award anything based on pure statistical data, not only because all numbers can be made to lie, but because when all is said and done individual awards in a team sport are based on success.
You're correct, of course, that individual awards are largely dependent on team success. That doesn't make it right or appropriate or logical, though.

voodoochile
10-19-2010, 06:14 PM
You're correct, of course, that individual awards are largely dependent on team success. That doesn't make it right or appropriate or logical, though.

Well that all completely depends on your POV. Some people value statistical evaluations more than others do. This isn't a black/white, cut and dried issue regardless of how some people want to make it one.

Craig Grebeck
10-19-2010, 06:21 PM
Well that all completely depends on your POV. Some people value statistical evaluations more than others do. This isn't a black/white, cut and dried issue regardless of how some people want to make it one.
Yes. But this debate is about which statistics are more valuable.

voodoochile
10-19-2010, 06:45 PM
Yes. But this debate is about which statistics are more valuable.

Well I was responding to "Right or appropriate or logical" which in this particular discussion are purely subjective evaluations. This is an opinion discussion, not a fact discussion.

Some think one set of stats is more valuable others think another set is. In most cases we agree that basic stats like IP, ERA, SO and probably WHIP are factors in that discussion. Then the path diverges.

And again, even the points we mostly agree on are still just opinions. Yes, they are widely held opinions but still just opinions.

Marqhead
10-19-2010, 06:52 PM
Well that all completely depends on your POV. Some people value statistical evaluations more than others do. This isn't a black/white, cut and dried issue regardless of how some people want to make it one.

....And there's really only one person trying to make it one.

TDog
10-19-2010, 07:05 PM
Lincecum isn't going to win it, but it's not because he didn't win enough games or lost too many games. This year he was 16-10, last year 15-7. A whopping 2 game swing decides the award for him? No, it's because his stats aren't what they were last year. Like Hernandez, he was tops in a lot of the more advanced stats the past 2 years running. This year, not so much.

If Tim Lincecum won 20 games with his stats from this regular season, he would be getting his third straight NIL Cy Young award. As it was, he left two eventual Giants losses with a 1-0 lead in the ninth inning, so some people here would consider those wins. (Come to think of it, one wasn't 1-0 but a game where he left with one on and one out in the ninth with a 4-0 lead, but Brian Wilson lost it and the Giants lost in extra innings. Of course, even last year he still won twice as many as he lost, even pitching for a team with a struggling offense. It wasn't all impressive stats. It was his record and his stats.

The big awards are justifiably dependent upon team success because baseball is a team sport. Playing on a team that won only 59 games didn't keep Steve Carlton from winning the Cy Young award, but he won 27 games that year.

You win a batting title or an ERA or a strikeout title, you've done something on an individual level. You win MVP or Cy Young because you helped your team win games.

Daver
10-19-2010, 07:07 PM
Yes. But this debate is about which statistics are more valuable.


None of them. when all is said and done your team lives and dies by it's W/L record, impressive stats won't get you into the post season.

Marqhead
10-19-2010, 07:08 PM
If Tim Lincecum won 20 games with his stats from this regular season, he would be getting his third straight NIL Cy Young award.


Roy Halladay.

Marqhead
10-19-2010, 07:09 PM
None of them. when all is said and done your team lives and dies by it's W/L record, impressive stats won't get you into the post season.

BUT THEY WILL WIN YOU CERTAIN AWARDS FOR BEING THE BEST AT YOUR POSITION.

Good grief.

Daver
10-19-2010, 07:20 PM
You're correct, of course, that individual awards are largely dependent on team success. That doesn't make it right or appropriate or logical, though.


How is it not appropriate?

Or logical?

Baseball is a team sport first and foremost, if the propellerheads want to award their own awards based on the numbers they contrive, so be it, but don't bitch about a formula that has worked for over fifty years.

The rise in the popularity of tracking stats has made people ignore actual performance for perceived performance, a number line can only tell you a 1/4 of the story. This isn't fantasy baseball we are discussing.

Daver
10-19-2010, 08:44 PM
BUT THEY WILL WIN YOU CERTAIN AWARDS FOR BEING THE BEST AT YOUR POSITION.

Good grief.

Will they?

What stats prove why Rapheal Palmiero desrved a Gold Glove after playing less than 50 games at first base?

Marqhead
10-19-2010, 09:02 PM
Will they?

What stats prove why Rapheal Palmiero desrved a Gold Glove after playing less than 50 games at first base?

I agree with you on Gold Gloves. Often they are given to a player more for his offensive ability, popularity and perceived defensive prowess than to the best defensive player at that position.

I'm speaking more of MVPs, Cy Youngs and ROYs which you may or may not care about in the slightest, but are the crux of this argument.

Daver
10-19-2010, 09:29 PM
I agree with you on Gold Gloves. Often they are given to a player more for his offensive ability, popularity and perceived defensive prowess than to the best defensive player at that position.

I'm speaking more of MVPs, Cy Youngs and ROYs which you may or may not care about in the slightest, but are the crux of this argument.

What more do you want me to say?

The BBWA are never going to embrace any statistical approach, a good chunk of them haven't covered a game since Nolan Ryan was in his prime, but also because it does not lie in the best interest of the sport itself.

The propellerheads at some point have to realize that they are a very small minority in the total fandom of MLB, I would estimate it at less then 5%, though it is a very vocal >5%, joining them is the fifteen percent that play fantasy baseball, but don't go into it to the minutiae level of the propellerheads, and you still have a fraction of the fandom of the sport.

No one is ever going to try and appease less than 10% of their fanbase by awarding an individual award based on nothing but contrived numbers over a player that has made headlines on a regular basis in the national media.

Perception is reality,for all intents and purposes, and the perception for the vast majority of MLB fans is greater than the reality of numbers that are designed to achieve a specific result.

Craig Grebeck
10-19-2010, 09:38 PM
What more do you want me to say?

The BBWA are never going to embrace any statistical approach, a good chunk of them haven't covered a game since Nolan Ryan was in his prime, but also because it does not lie in the best interest of the sport itself.

The propellerheads at some point have to realize that they are a very small minority in the total fandom of MLB, I would estimate it at less then 5%, though it is a very vocal >5%, joining them is the fifteen percent that play fantasy baseball, but don't go into it to the minutiae level of the propellerheads, and you still have a fraction of the fandom of the sport.

No one is ever going to try and appease less than 10% of their fanbase by awarding an individual award based on nothing but contrived numbers over a player that has made headlines on a regular basis in the national media.

Perception is reality,for all intents and purposes, and the perception for the vast majority of MLB fans is greater than the reality of numbers that are designed to achieve a specific result.
It is not about appeasing sections of the fanbase. It is about awarding someone based on the quality of their performance.

Also, how is ERA designed to achieve a specific result? What about K/9? K%? BB%?

All very, very, very basic statistics.

Daver
10-19-2010, 09:45 PM
It is not about appeasing sections of the fanbase. It is about awarding someone based on the quality of their performance.

Also, how is ERA designed to achieve a specific result? What about K/9? K%? BB%?

All very, very, very basic statistics.

You must be too dense to read what I have already posted, not that it surprises me.

Craig Grebeck
10-19-2010, 09:54 PM
You must be too dense to read what I have already posted, not that it surprises me.
Eat ****. Try civility, for once. It's enthralling.

Marqhead
10-19-2010, 09:57 PM
Hook, line, and sinker, eh Daver? :rolleyes:

Bob Roarman
10-20-2010, 08:25 AM
You must be too dense to read what I have already posted, not that it surprises me.

Hahaha, man, this dude. You're too much man. You crack me up.

And you're the admin here? Seriously?

This thread is going to be very interesting in a few weeks. The "propellerheads" are trying to kill baseball tradition! They must be stopped!

happydude
10-20-2010, 11:30 AM
Guys, please. Can we not simply engage in the free exchange of ideas? Why does honest disagreement so often have to devolve into castigation and mockery of those with whom we disagree?

Daver
10-20-2010, 06:39 PM
And you're the admin here? Seriously?



Well, there is more than one admin here, but yes, seriously.

You can use the contact us link at the bottom of the page to file a complaint, or you can send it to me directly, it will get to my inbox either way.

Bob Roarman
10-20-2010, 09:01 PM
Guys, please. Can we not simply engage in the free exchange of ideas? Why does honest disagreement so often have to devolve into castigation and mockery of those with whom we disagree?

No I don't think that's really all that possible anymore, at least widespread. Everyone should be open to new information and prepared to change their views in light of it, even if it threatens your current beliefs. Static knowledge doesn't exist, it only becomes outdated and then updated and evolves through future discoveries/emergences (when uninhibited). But there's always a mass contingent of people who can't handle it, don't want it. So they shelter and preserve that "tradition" from any kind of new, potentially transforming information that threatens it and, in effect, their own beliefs. It's a finite understanding, trapped in the past.

Because it's viewed like that by these people, if you challenge these beliefs, it almost always results in insult and apprehension because under those views being wrong is erroneously associated with failure, when it should be the opposite, it should be celebrated, because it's raising your understanding and awareness of whatever the topic is at hand being discussed. This will probably never change, and it's definitely not exclusive to sports related debates, it is all encompassing.

So no, Daver, sending a complaint to your inbox isn't going to make a difference, you are what you are, like most people are.

Daver
10-20-2010, 09:15 PM
No I don't think that's really all that possible anymore, at least widespread. Everyone should be open to new information and prepared to change their views in light of it, even if it threatens your current beliefs.

When you find this information feel free to let me know, I'd like to see it, there hasn't been any in this thread though.

Bob Roarman
10-21-2010, 01:31 AM
Of course you don't see it Dave.

voodoochile
10-21-2010, 02:12 AM
Of course you don't see it Dave.

His points as well as TDog's point have been equally dismissed by the other side. Plenty of people refusing to accept the other side's POV in this thread, Bob.

Bob Roarman
10-21-2010, 04:14 AM
Yeah I know, we've been using the "Those stats are just made up and mean nothing" line in order to squash their views quite a bit in this thread haven't we? Everything that's been used as a counter argument, at least from me, has been purely on the information and data available, not childish comments like our oh so humble administrator of the site proclaims. And oh, look, Grebeck is banned now after having responded to said bull**** kindergarten insults directed at him. Hmmm, that's a funny coincidence. Well, it was probably for something else right? Yeah....

No one has said that using advanced stats and sabermetrics are perfect representations of a player's performance, but it is a more reliable tool to use. The alternative is far more flawed and incomplete. Perspective, the way of looking at things, changes over fifty years. Hell, the game itself has changed dramatically over fifty years, it's a bigger question of why WOULDN'T you look at it differently? I don't know why that is such a hard concept to grasp for people like him.

voodoochile
10-21-2010, 11:43 AM
Yeah I know, we've been using the "Those stats are just made up and mean nothing" line in order to squash their views quite a bit in this thread haven't we? Everything that's been used as a counter argument, at least from me, has been purely on the information and data available, not childish comments like our oh so humble administrator of the site proclaims. And oh, look, Grebeck is banned now after having responded to said bull**** kindergarten insults directed at him. Hmmm, that's a funny coincidence. Well, it was probably for something else right? Yeah....

No one has said that using advanced stats and sabermetrics are perfect representations of a player's performance, but it is a more reliable tool to use. The alternative is far more flawed and incomplete. Perspective, the way of looking at things, changes over fifty years. Hell, the game itself has changed dramatically over fifty years, it's a bigger question of why WOULDN'T you look at it differently? I don't know why that is such a hard concept to grasp for people like him.

See you are so wrapped up in the stats over all argument you won't even consider that the other side has a point.

And that's MY point. You are just as guilty of dismissing the other sides argument - which Daver and TDog have presented very eloquently - as they are of dismissing yours.

And again and for the umpteenth time, we don't discuss bans in public. That's between the person banned and the mod staff. We won't discuss one for you should that day ever come either, so please don't go there.

But thanks, it gives me a reason to do this...

Closed.