NL Cy Young Winner is...................

I agree with HGM on not using WAR for pitchers.

i don't agree that Waino got ripped off.

Lincecum earned it, but Carp and Wainwright could have won and it wouldn't have been a rip off.

anyone of the three could have won and it could have been justified in any light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Yeah. I don't really like using WAR much for pitchers though. I give it a cursory look, but I think it's far behind WAR for position players. It's based entirely off FIP - strikeouts, walks, home runs. It doesn't take into account that there are differences in pitchers when it comes to BABIP that aren't just defense-related...it doesn't take into account things like holding baserunners, which generally may not be a big deal but there are cases where it does add a lot of value to a pitcher (see: Mark Buerhle). In a case of two pitchers with identical ERA's and/or VORP or whatever, I'll look to WAR/FIP and give it to the guy who did better there, but I can't give it enough to weight to push Dan Haren over Chris Carpenter for example.


Well, even considering Lee's full season stats, he's behind Greinke and Lincecum, along with guys like Carpenter and Wainwright.

---

Thanks for the smack upside the head HGM. I needed that: I have seen the light. The same five pitchers keep popping up with the Baseball Prospectus stats (VORP, PK_RA, RA+, RP) plus ERA+. To wit (in this order): Carpenter, Lincecum, Wainwright, Matt Cain, and Jair Jurrjens. Carpenter and Lincecum are very close, Wainwright a distant third, Cain fourth and Jurrjens very close to Cain in 5th. With FIP, all hell breaks loose: Lincecum, Vazquez, Carpenter, Josh Johnson and Wainwright (I dropped Kershaw and Happ due to lack of innings relative to the others). Value or WAR says Lincecum, Vazquez, Haren, Wainwright and Ubaldo Jimenez with Carpenter in 6th, so like you said it's a bit of a mess. Carpenter and Lincecum are so close, it's ridiculous. I think Carpenter might have made the better choice upon further review, but I certainly don't think anyone got "jobbed".

if on only one ballot carp had been voted first instead of third that lincecum had been voted first, and you swap them, you have a different winner, that's how close this ballot was....only in 98 was there another close vote, and this one was closer.

And if Carp hadn't been left on two ballots, he may have been the winner.

mlb network was just talking abuot the two guys that left carp off their ballots.

one of the reasoning: was because Carp didn't pitch a full season.


he had four less starts then lincecum! and still pitched almost 200 innings!

it's not like he was a part time pitcher.


how does one pitch almost 200 innings and that isn't enough?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

mlb network was just talking abuot the two guys that left carp off their ballots.

one of the reasoning: was because Carp didn't pitch a full season.


he had four less starts then lincecum! and still pitched almost 200 innings!

it's not like he was a part time pitcher.

how does one pitch almost 200 innings and that isn't enough?!

---

Keith Law.

It wasn't that he "didn't pitch a full season" as much as "the other guys threw 30 more innings."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

The ballots that Carpenter was left off of were as follows:

Will Carroll:
Wainwright
Lincecum
Haren

Keith Law:
Lincecum
Vazquez
Wainwright

You put Carp in replace of Vazquez and Haren and he gains 4 points and still finishes 2 behind Lincecum...so...false.

---

he COULD have won.

he didn't say he would have won. the word there is COULD, because conceivably Carp could have been first, second or third. it isn't a slam dunk second and third place vote where you just replace vazquez and haren. just saying what he said and what he meant. he said could, not would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Keith Law.

It wasn't that he "didn't pitch a full season" as much as "the other guys threw 30 more innings."

---

30 innings really isn't that much more. in terms of percentage, he threw around 12 percent less.....which almost means he was that much more dominating when he did pitch when you look at his other numbers.

and his second reasoning was defense behind the player?! what?! so why is wainwright on your ballot if carp isn't?! and where is it said that the giants had better defense and so did the braves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

he COULD have won.

he didn't say he would have won. the word there is COULD, because conceivably Carp could have been first, second or third. it isn't a slam dunk second and third place vote where you just replace vazquez and haren. just saying what he said and what he meant. he said could, not would.

---

If Carpenter made those two ballots, he wasn't going to be listed first on either of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

If Carpenter made those two ballots, he wasn't going to be listed first on either of them.

---

i know, but you replied to his comment as though it was fact that he was stating. he said could have won, not would have won.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

30 innings really isn't that much more. in terms of percentage, he threw around 12 percent less.....which almost means he was that much more dominating when he did pitch when you look at his other numbers.

---

30 innings is significant when you're comparing players who were very close in terms of rate performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

and his second reasoning was defense behind the player?! what?!

---

Yes, because it's an award for pitching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

so why is wainwright on your ballot if carp isn't?!

---

Because he pitched 40 more innings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

and where is it said that the giants had better defense and so did the braves?

---

I'd bet Law's using his own assessments of the defenses more than anything. The Giants grade out slightly higher in most metrics. Furthermore, he's very likely accounting for the fact that Lincecum RELIED less on his defense and did more of the work himself.



If you want to whine about a bad explanation, try Will Carroll's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

i know, but you replied to his comment as though it was fact that he was stating. he said could have won, not would have won.

---

Than it was an utterly meaningless statement.

To me, he was clearly whining about Carp (and Wainwright) losing and implied that being left off those two ballots was the reason in Carp's case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

he had four less starts then lincecum! and still pitched almost 200 innings!

it's not like he was a part time pitcher

---

Back in the 70's, if you pitched less than 200 innings, you were a part-time pitcher.

Of course, the game has changed--we haven't had anyone pitch 300 or more since what, Carlton in 79?--but still, as HGM pointed out, when 2 pitchers are otherwise close in value, but 1 of them has 30 innings or so more, that's a big difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

30 innings is significant when you're comparing players who were very close in terms of rate performance.

---

and carp had the better rate performance.

Quote:

---

Because he pitched 40 more innings.

---

I said why is wainwright on his ballot if carp isn't when he said that his second reasoning is that the defense behind him. wainwright had the same defense carpenter had.

Quote:

---

I'd bet Law's using his own assessments of the defenses more than anything. The Giants grade out slightly higher in most metrics. Furthermore, he's very likely accounting for the fact that Lincecum RELIED less on his defense and did more of the work himself.

---

then he could say that. he did not. The Giants have better defense then the Cardinals in 09, so why does Carpenter get left off the ballot if his second reasoning is defense?

Quote:

---

If you want to whine about a bad explanation, try Will Carroll's.

---

I had not gotten to see his yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dps

Back in the 70's, if you pitched less than 200 innings, you were a part-time pitcher.

Of course, the game has changed--we haven't had anyone pitch 300 or more since what, Carlton in 79?--but still, as HGM pointed out, when 2 pitchers are otherwise close in value, but 1 of them has 30 innings or so more, that's a big difference.

---

But Carpenter has the better rate stats is my argument.

ERA, ERA plus, Dice.

the only thing he didn't do better then lincecum is the strike outs, and that is because Carp is more of a sinker baller ground out pitcher...he gets strike outs, but that isn't how he pitches.

there is obviously a huge value for being a big strike out guy. That is a big value obviously, but in terms of rate stats, carpenter edges out everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

and carp had the better rate performance.

---

It was very close.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

I said why is wainwright on his ballot if carp isn't when he said that his second reasoning is that the defense behind him. wainwright had the same defense carpenter had.

---

That was only PART of the equation, not the entire reason. He didn't disqualify them because of the defense. It knocked them down a few steps. He said that 2-4 in his eyes could basically be in any order - Vazquez, Wainwright, Carpenter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

then he could say that. he did not. The Giants have better defense then the Cardinals in 09, so why does Carpenter get left off the ballot if his second reasoning is defense?

---

Since it was his vote, in HIS estimation, the Cardinals had the better defense. And, again, the largest reason was the innings.