we find out in 30 minutes
Printable View
we find out in 30 minutes
I was surprised that Tim Lincecum won the ESPN mock vote, so while yesterday I said that there was no chance in hell of Lincecum getting it thanks to his mere 15 wins, I'm a little more confident now...although, I still think it'll probably go to Carpenter or Wainwright.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
the mlb.com comments (which are always so interesting and intelligent) seem to favor lincy as well.
Can two players on the same team 'steal' votes from each other?
Well, one of the SF writer votes goes to Chris Carpenter.
Why? Mainly second-half performance.
I'm glad this writer shrugged off the homerism, though, and actually seemed to put thought into the ballot and justified it with a semblance of reason rather than intangible notions of "toughness." Though Lincecum would be my pick, I think Carpenter is perfectly justifiable.
I hear this notion a lot, usually in regards to the MVP voting, but don't quite understand how or if it works in practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by acetoolguy
SAme here..was hoping somebody here had some insight
I would hope not, and i don 't see it happening in practice.
it's not like they had identical seasons...their years were actually very different.
and i am happy that the san fran writer isn't a homer, and did his vote correctly, granted, had he voted for lince, we wouldn't know if he was that kind of writer
wow, you see the comments that people are writing?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
down right impressive san fran.
i liked the breakdown by the guy.
i def respect him, either way, he fully justified anything.
http://bbwaa.com/
Tim Lincecum wins.
Wow.
Adam Wainwright actually had the most 1st place votes with 12, but came in third behind Lincecum and Carpenter.
What a close one.
damnit!
carp and waino hurt each other by being in it ;)
splitting the second and third place votes.
that sucks, but lince earned it....
carp and waino earned it too, but that sucks
Wow, way to go writers. Greinke, and now this...my faith is being redeemed in baseball writers. Maybe more are actually taking their job seriously.
Now, what to do about those Gold Gloves...
Give the vote to the writers....? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alloutwar
I don't think this says enough about the writers just yet. After all, Adam Wainwright did get the most first place votes.
Give it a couple more years, and we'll see...but things do seem to be looking up. I don't doubt that the influx of internet writers and younger writers has to do with it.
Its good to see they recognize performance over wins.
"Twice in a row dudes!! I did it again! Lets roll one up and celebrate!"- Tim Lincecum
Let the whining commence.
It was an incredibly close race. Nobody got "jobbed." Anyway:
I said "let the whining commence" before I got to this part of the article:Quote:
Many baseball writers downplayed the value of actually winning games, since Lincecum won just 15 times with a decent supporting team.
Wainwright won the most games in the NL, 19. Winning games is the whole point of playing, so that statistic should carry great weight.
lol :rolleyes:Quote:
But Wainwright didn’t win his 20th game . . . and you saw how the balloting turned out. Adam got jobbed.
Let the complaining begin.
But, anyway, there's this:
The ballots that Carpenter was left off of were as follows:Quote:
Carpenter was left off two ballots, with Javier Vasquez and Danny Haren presumably getting some local love. If Carpenter made those two ballots, he could have won the award.
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.
there will be complainers no matter what the vote is no matter what the out come is.
lince earned it. no one got ripped off, st. louis powerful rotation got some awesome recognition out of this.
i am happy with it, so whatever.
stupidest ****ing article.
i think this is the one hgm was referring to, but i am still hungover
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/spo...3?OpenDocument
Too hungover to scroll up a couple of posts? :p lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/spo...C?OpenDocument
this i can agree with
the comments are exhausting to read
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
actually.................
:p:o
Still some silly reasoning:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Why does it carry more weight? Why does it carry any weight at all? How many players, when questioned, are going to say that they should win the award? I'd bet very few. Most are going to be modest about it. What the contenders think should not matter. It's the award for the best pitcher in the league. All that should matter is who pitched the best.Quote:
— Lincecum told reporters that Carpenter deserved to win. That carries more credibility because it wasn't a matter of one teammate deferring to another, as Carpenter and Wainwright did in discussing this Cy Young race.
Again, no problem with anybody choosing Wainwright or Carpenter...The three could be ordered in any way, they were so close. It's just that a lot of the reasons that are given really strain credibility.
It's amazing how little attention Javier Vazquez's year got. 2.87 ERA with a K/BB of 5.41 and a WHIP of 1.02. Nice.
Cy Young pick fail.
Well, the MVP usually goes to someone one a team that won its division, or at least contended. In fact, on the occsasions when it's gone to someone on a team that didn't contend, people have gotten upset about it. Well, even on a contending team, it's pretty common that there is one player who has fairly clearly had a better season than any of his teammates, so in deciding who should get the MVP, naturally people are going to compare that player's season to the seasons that the top players on the other contending teams. And some people are going to tend to decide that it should got to the best player on the best team, regardless of whether there were players on other teams who had even better years. But in a year when the best team has 2 players who both had great seasons, but one isn't clearly better than the other, some of those voters who are going to vote for the best player on that team are going to vote for one of the two, and some will vote for the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
An example might help. I'm not going to use real teams or real players, so that any emotional content is take out of the picture. Imagine a year in which the 3 best team in the league all won 95 or more games, while no other team won more than 88. So the top of the standings look like this:
EASTERN DIVISION
Team A 114-48
Team B 82-80
CENTRAL DIVISION
Team C 97-65
Team D 96-66 (WC)
WESTERN DIVISION
Team E 88-74
Team F 75-87
OK, now let's say that Team A had a RF who went .345/.421/.564 with 35 HR and 37 SB. Team B had a RF who went .352/.466/.598 with 48 HR and 16 SB. Team C had a C who went .320/.404/.519 with 29 HR. Let's also assume that all of these guys are above average defensively, but not at a Gold Glove caliber level. Let's also assume that none of these teams had any other position players who had seasons anywhere near that good. So, who would win the MVP? Well, if all 3 teams had the same W-L record, Team B's RF would get a lot of votes because he had the best raw offensive stats (let's also pretend here that those rather simple stat lines accurate reflect each players real offensive value--we know better, but I don't want to make this example too complicated). The catcher on Team C probably get some votes because that level of production is harder to come by at catcher. The RF on Team A would get some votes from people who over-value steals, but would probably finish 3rd in the voting--again, IF all 3 teams had the same record. But Team A's W-L record is so much better than the other 2 teams, he's going to get some additional votes because of that, and would have a good shot at winning.
But now let's make a change. Let's assume that the 3B on Team A also had an outstanding season, going .338/.465/.522 with 27 HR, 17 SB and GG-type defense. Now what's going to happen is that some of the voters who would have voted for Team A's RF are going to vote for the 3B instead, and make it unlikely for either of them to win the award.
That's basically the theory, anyway. Does it actually happen? Probably, on occasion, but it's hard to say because lots of times we have no real idea what the voters were thinking. However, I don't think it influences any of the other player awards much. In fact, in context of the Cy Young award, while obviously being on a bad team will tend to reduce a pitcher's win total, and the therefore making it harder to win, if the pitcher is able to win 20 on a team that finishes under .500, the team's poor record will probably work in his favor.
According to Fangraphs, favourite of a lot of folks on this site the voting "should" have been (by WAR):
1. Tim Lincecum
2. Javier Vazquez
3. Dan Haren
and a big bag of poo for Cliff Lee, because everyone knows it's all his fault he got traded from one league to the other in the middle of the season. No Carpenter, no Wainwright, so really no problem. Could somebody please give those St. Louis Cardinals writers some cheese to go with their whine? Thanks. And metsguy...your troll attempt...fail.
same with Haren and De Le RosaQuote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
but waino, lince, and carp were better
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
Well, even considering Lee's full season stats, he's behind Greinke and Lincecum, along with guys like Carpenter and Wainwright.Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
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.
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
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?!
Keith Law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
It wasn't that he "didn't pitch a full season" as much as "the other guys threw 30 more innings."
he COULD have won.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
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?
If Carpenter made those two ballots, he wasn't going to be listed first on either of them.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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
30 innings is significant when you're comparing players who were very close in terms of rate performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Yes, because it's an award for pitching.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Because he pitched 40 more innings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
If you want to whine about a bad explanation, try Will Carroll's.