Clemens,Carpenter, or Willis for Cy Young? (edit)

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

By the way, Roy Oswalt has managed to win 14 games on that pathetic Houston team, but Clemens can only come up with 11? Maybe it's because Oswalt has stuck around for more than 7 innings 10 times this year. If I were in Houston's lineup, I think I'd be more inclined to put forth a little more effort for a guy who's going to gut it out, too.

 

Or maybe it's the fact that the Astros score runs when Oswalt pitches. But no, that's just crazy talk right? :roll:

 

Yeah, I listed three guys. I had two minutes to look because I was at work, and I found three guys that had a year that is equal to or better than what Carp is doing. TWO MINUTES, and only in one league. Carp is having a good year, but it appears years like his happen quite frequently. Now, can you find me ANY pitcher that was having the year Clemens is having now in the last ten years. Let me save you some time... the answer is no.

 

And if the verdict isn't out on Clemens because the year isn't over, then this argument is pointless, because last time I checked, Carp's year wasn't over either.

 

Your posts are becoming less and less based on fact, and more and more based on homerism and your opinion that Roger Clemens can't go deep into game.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

As it standw now I think Clemens should get the the Cy Young. I simply cannot believe anyone could look at the numbers and see it otherwise. Clemens VORP (74.9 v 65.2) is almost 10 points higher. That said there's a lot of baseball to be played.

 

Go Carpenter! Go Cards!

[reggiemiller rules]

By the way, Roy Oswalt has managed to win 14 games on that pathetic Houston team, but Clemens can only come up with 11? Maybe it's because Oswalt has stuck around for more than 7 innings 10 times this year. If I were in Houston's lineup, I think I'd be more inclined to put forth a little more effort for a guy who's going to gut it out, too.

 

NOBODY CARES ABOUT WINS AND THEY ARENT HELPING YOUR ARGUMENT

 

WINS ARE MEANINGLESS

 

I am not saying Carp should be the Cy Young winner. But to say that wins are meaningless is wrong. Because baseball writers who vote for the Cy Young historically look at wins, and how the team does. I think Clemens should win it because of his ERA. But voters vote for wins and they proved that last year when Clemens won it.

[EastonBlues22]

This is really beating a dead horse here. The decision's not made today, it's made at the end of the season. The choice will be clear then. And personally, if LaRussa allows Carp to go one more complete game this season, I think he needs to have his head examined. He is an injury prone pitcher already at 180 innings (on pace for 245), more than any other year except 2001 (215 IP and look where that got him the next year). If necessary, save it for the post season. Carp is the one pitcher we need to have any hope of going far in the playoffs. I'd like to see him there.

+++

[EastonBlues22]

I said the last 10 years. 1995 wasn't the last 10 years. So you found 2. 2005 isn't over yet, so we're not counting 2005 Clemens. Go ahead an list more, if you think you can.

 

Umm...if 2005 isn't over yet, then how can 1995 NOT be in the last ten years?

[treebird]

By the way, Roy Oswalt has managed to win 14 games on that pathetic Houston team, but Clemens can only come up with 11? Maybe it's because Oswalt has stuck around for more than 7 innings 10 times this year. If I were in Houston's lineup, I think I'd be more inclined to put forth a little more effort for a guy who's going to gut it out, too.

 

NOBODY CARES ABOUT WINS AND THEY ARENT HELPING YOUR ARGUMENT

 

WINS ARE MEANINGLESS

 

I am not saying Carp should be the Cy Young winner. But to say that wins are meaningless is wrong. Because baseball writers who vote for the Cy Young historically look at wins, and how the team does. I think Clemens should win it because of his ERA. But voters vote for wins and they proved that last year when Clemens won it.

 

the voters who vote based on wins are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

this is a discussion of who should win, not who will win due to moronic voters who think 20 wins mean a good season and less than 15 wins means kerry wood sucks.

[imb]

I can't believe there is a 12 page thread on a Cubs board about whether a Cardinal or an Astro should win a meaningless award. I hope the two teams charter planes crash into each other.

[UK1679666180]

You can look at VORP, Win Shares, Pitching Runs Above avg., DIPS and they'll tell you the same thing that Clemens has been the better pitcher than Carpenter.

 

There was no smearing of any stats, mentioning BB/K ratio and not mentioning HR allowed is smearing stats, that's focusing on 2/3rds of the DIPS equation and not mentioning the other key component that the defense cannot dictate and that is the HR, which is why Clemens has the clear and obvious advantage in DIPS.

 

If the IP of Carpenter could compensate for the stats advantage Clemens has, there would be some validity. At this point, saying Carpenter deserves it, I question whether that statement is solely coming from a cloored glasses standpoint rather than logic.

[UK1679666180]

If Baseball was decided on rate stats? You're talking about the greatest season of all-time with Gibson, that 1.12 is known by everyone and Clemens has better rate stats than Gibson.

 

Yet, Clemens can have better rate stats and not be the front-runner for the Cy Young?

 

I'm not sure what you're saying. YOU are using rate stats to say that Clemens is arguably having a better year than Gibson. YOU are using rate stats to say that Clemens is having a better year than Carpenter. I'm telling you that the obsession with rate stats isn't fair, and if you want to use rate stats, then start your campaign for Chad Cordero as the Cy Young winner this year.

 

Clemens' rate stats are better, in part, because he's being coddled. He hasn't finished a game for his team all year.

 

 

Last Year's NL pitching results and Cy Young Voting

 

Results

Jake Peavy 15-8 2.27

R Johnson 16-14 2.60

Ben Sheets 12-14 2.70

Carlos Zambrano 16-8 2.75

Clemens 18-4 2.98

Oliver Perez 12-10 2.98

Carl Pavano 18-8 3.00

Roy Oswalt 20-10 3.49

 

Cy Young Voting

Clemens

Johnson

Oswalt

Schmidt

Zambrano

Pavano

Gagne

Lidge

Sheets

 

 

There were FOUR other pitchers in the NL with a better ERA than Clemens last year, yet Clemens won the Cy Young Award. Peavy had a better ERA than ANY of the other pitchers, and wasn't even on the radar for the Cy Young Award. Now, in 2005, when Clemens finally gets the ERA t hing down pat, the award is suddenly ALL about ERA. I don't get it.

 

Again, there is no precedence. A starting pitcher has never finished what he started ZERO times, and still won the Cy Young Award. I don't get it.

 

 

I think Clemens last year was a mistake, there were better options.

 

As far as Cordero, he has saved 23 runs over an avg. pitcher, lower than Clemens and Carpenter. His DIPS is also lower than Clemens.

 

Btw, the only was of those that is a rate stat is DIPS.

 

Vorp, DIPS, PRAA, and Win Shares are accumulative stats, which favor Clemens despite the 17 IP difference, how is that possible?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Wow...I started this discussion to keep it out of the game threads. Due to my starting work again, I have just caught up with it.

 

A few points. Carpenter is having a great year. No one is trying to diminish that. On the other hand, what Clemens is doing is simply remarkable. It's unheard of. He is simply dominating in nearly every game.

 

I mentioned this earlier, but Clemens has had zero games where he has allowed over three runs! While Carpenter hasn't given up much lately, he has had starts where he allowed four or more runs.

 

Over the last few months, Carpenter has been great. He's helped carry the Cardinals to best record in the league, but he still hasn't pitched as well as Clemens.

 

Last I checked, the Cy Young should go to the pitcher who has pitched the best for the entire season. I can't see how anyone can doubt that is Clemens. I doubt anyone outside Cardinal-land does.

 

Furthermore, the debate about whether Clemens should have won it last season is irrelevant to this discussion. Those points could have been raised last year. But if Clemens finishes with an ERA under 1.50 the Cy should be his unless Carp can get his under 2.00.

 

There's still some baseball to be played, so we'll have to see what happens. But I've watched Clemens pitch this season, and I don't think that in my lifetime I've seen a more consistent and dominating performance.

 

Calling out Clemens and saying he likes durability is the most assinine argument I've read thus far. It's not like he's consistently leaving after the fifth inning.

 

Finally, let's leave the steroid argument out of this. There have been no eye-witness accounts of his using and no failed tests. Who's to say Carp didn't use steroids to help him recover from his injuries? Does that sound ridiculous? Of course it does, just like the accusation against Clemens reminds me of a drunk monkey throwing feces at the computer in an attempt to strengthen his argument. It's ludicrous.

 

Final summation: When all the facts are considered, Clemens hands down deserves the Cy Young.

[nilodnayr]

 

 

I'm strictly comparing Clemens to Carpenter, and not the rest of the league. Compared to Carpenter, Clemens hasn't been as durable, or given himself a chance to win as often.

 

Clemens is actually 43 years old, but that has nothing to do with who should win the Cy Young Award.

 

 

Another quirky stat:

 

Clemens has only pitched 3 games ALL YEAR against teams that would be in the playoffs, if the playoffs started today (2 against St. Louis, 1 against Atlanta). He's 1-0 (his team scored 4 runs for him in that game), and his team is 1-2 in those games.

 

 

Carpenter has pitched 7 games against teams that would be in the playoffs, if the playoffs started today. He's 4-2, and his team is 5-2 in those games.

 

 

 

Clemens is 3-3 against the NL Central.

 

Carpenter is 10-0 vs. the NL Central.

 

 

Thank Carpenter has had something to do with the Cards' big NL Central lead?

 

 

Well if the Cy Young was going to a team, it would go to the cards...unfortunatley its supposed to go to a pitcher (I acknowledge that often wins are considered although we all obviously know little stock should be put in them). What you dont mention that against playoff teams, Clemens ERA is 1.89 and Carps is 2.47. And against winning teams Clemens ERA is 1.2 and Carps is 2.6....hmmmm. Why dont you stop quoting team statistics and start quoting something the pitcher has quite a bit of control over.

 

Because it didn't seem to matter what the pitcher (Randy Johnson, Jake Peavy, etc.) did last year when Clemens won. Why should it matter this year?

 

Clemens' ERA is lower because he's being coddled, plain and simple.

 

Because evaluating a pitcher on wins is just plain ignorant and I do not condone the continuation of ignorance among voters. If you do, so be it. The unit should have won last year and Pedro should have won it the year before.

[nilodnayr]

He's not the most "dominant". He's probably been the most consistent, for 7 innings a game, but Carpenter is more dominant.

 

Carpenter has pitched 3 of the 5 best games in baseball (not just the NL, but in the entire Major Leagues), according to ESPN's game scores. Clemens is nowhere to be found:

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/bestgames

 

 

FYI #9 and #10 on that list have scores of 88. Clemens last game was an 87.

 

Carp has 11 games that rank 70 or higher, Clemens has 13. Now Clemens may not have pitched as many insanely dominant games but a line of 7IP, 4H, 0R, 0ER, 5BB, 6K (an example of a 70 score line) is pretty darn dominating. Arguably depending on what you consider dominating Clemens has been more dominating.

Edited August 17, 2005 by nilodnayr

[SouthSideRyan]

This really seems like the same argument back and forth, so I stopped reading on page 4. If this point was made I apologize.

 

 

11.57

 

That's the ERA whoever relieved Clemens for those ~16 innings has to have in order to match Carpenter's ERA.

[Cubfanintheknow]

I apologize if this info has already been posted (because I, too, didn't want to wade through all the posts), but I heard this yesterday on teh Dan Patrick show.

 

Roger Clemens era: 1.32

Chris Carpenter's era: 2.25

 

Now, when Bob Gibson set the season era record of 1.12 in 1968, the league era for that year was 2.99. The current NL era is 4.45. While the era of both pitcher's is outstanding, Clemens' era really stands out because of what the current league mark. As SouthsideRyan pointed out in the post above, if Clemens could get just a little help, he'd easily match the win total of Carpenter and then some.

[Warpticon]

Oh i forgort Clemens won the Cy Young last year with no CG. Last year Clemens was on a playoff conteder Peavy wasnt he also helped his team win more games than Peavy did. If Clemens didnt pitch those extra games they wouldn not have made the playoffs. He pitched 50 more IP than Peavy not 16.

 

And by the end of the year, Carpenter will likely have 25 more innings than Clemens. Is 50 extra innings the standard for this debate? Again, you're making rules up as we go along. And now playoff contention is a decisive factor, too. OK, I'm glad we're getting these things cleared up.

 

ERA shouldnt tell the whole story and neither should IP. The difference in IP of roger/carp is a lot smaller than the difference in ERA. They both have lost 4 games while Carp has won 6 more but i think its been stated pretty clearly as to why he has won 6 more than roger.

 

Yup. It's been stated pretty clear why Carp has won 6 more games. Just as it was stated pretty clearly last year why Randy Johnson didn't win as many games as Roger Clemens (because RJ was on a horrible team). It didn't seem to matter last year. Nobody wanted to give the award to Randy Johnson. Now that the tables are turned, everybody suddenly sees the light, and wants to give consideration to a guy who isn't getting the run support.

 

Hypocritical.

 

You see, this is what's ridiculous about most of your arguments in this thread. You don't even know who you're talking to. The thread is about who deserves the Cy Young award in 2005. Who deserved it last year is wholly irrelevant. On top of that, if you're going to call people hypocrites for supporting Clemens this year for different reasons than they supported him last year, wouldn't it be nice to...you know...KNOW THAT THEY ACTUALLY SUPPORTED CLEMENS FOR CY YOUNG LAST YEAR? Because, you know, we love to have our minds subsequently made up for us--it's so much easier than thinking for ourselves. Good Lord. If you're going to start labeling people based upon your own ignorance, than you have no business in any debate here. Shape up.

[K-Town]

This thread has turned into alot of ugliness and name-calling, so I'm done. I thought that most of you were above that (Cardinal fans would have been long-ago banned from this board for such behavior, and if I retliate in kind, I'll surely be gone).

 

By the way, there were also some EXCELLENT points made, some of which I hadn't considered before.

 

I've already told you I'm a "homer".

 

I've already told you that Clemens is having an unbelievable year.

 

I've already told you that if Clemens wins, I wouldn't consider it an injustice.

 

 

 

Why ask the question in the first place, if you just want everybody to say that same thing? Sorry I didn't conform. It's not my style. :wink:

[gus_dog]

This thread has turned into alot of ugliness and name-calling, so I'm done. I thought that most of you were above that (Cardinal fans would have been long-ago banned from this board for such behavior, and if I retliate in kind, I'll surely be gone).

Why ask the question in the first place, if you just want everybody to say that same thing? Sorry I didn't conform. It's not my style.

 

I disagree with you. I didn't really see any name-calling, and very little 'ugliness'. I also disagree with your assertion that '(Cardinal fans would have been long-ago banned from this board for such behavior, and if I retliate in kind, I'll surely be gone).', because that is simply not true. It smacks of the children from CardsTalk who come over here and post 'Cubs Suck, you guys are morans', and then complain because they get banned. Go figure.

 

Nobody wants you to 'conform', however, your arguments were continuously beating the same points over and over again. When several other posters refuted this with more detailed statistical information, you either ignored it, or fell back on your previous argument, as if the new information brought into the discussion had no bearing.

 

Please, don't martyr yourself here. You are welcome for debate, and the same rules apply to everyone, but you have to at least TRY to find the middle ground. If that middle ground can't be found, you just agree to disagree, and that's it.

 

JMHO.

[Warpticon]

It also helps if you don't just make up the opposing stance.

[K-Town]

It also helps if you don't just make up the opposing stance.

 

Like I said, if there is no opposing stance, then why even ask the question?

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

It also helps if you don't just make up the opposing stance.

 

Like I said, if there is no opposing stance, then why even ask the question?

 

It's fine to have an opposing stance. That was the nature of this thread. But you might want to back it up with something more than "Clemens isn't durable."

[K-Town]

This thread has turned into alot of ugliness and name-calling, so I'm done. I thought that most of you were above that (Cardinal fans would have been long-ago banned from this board for such behavior, and if I retliate in kind, I'll surely be gone).

Why ask the question in the first place, if you just want everybody to say that same thing? Sorry I didn't conform. It's not my style.

 

I disagree with you. I didn't really see any name-calling, and very little 'ugliness'. I also disagree with your assertion that '(Cardinal fans would have been long-ago banned from this board for such behavior, and if I retliate in kind, I'll surely be gone).', because that is simply not true. It smacks of the children from CardsTalk who come over here and post 'Cubs Suck, you guys are morans', and then complain because they get banned. Go figure.

 

Nobody wants you to 'conform', however, your arguments were continuously beating the same points over and over again. When several other posters refuted this with more detailed statistical information, you either ignored it, or fell back on your previous argument, as if the new information brought into the discussion had no bearing.

 

Please, don't martyr yourself here. You are welcome for debate, and the same rules apply to everyone, but you have to at least TRY to find the middle ground. If that middle ground can't be found, you just agree to disagree, and that's it.

 

JMHO.

 

I've been called "ignorant" twice. Do you want me to show you the posts? To me, that's "ugly".

 

As far as finding a "middle ground", I did that about 4 pages ago:

 

Look, Clemens has been TERRIFIC. I've already said that I can see the argument for him to win the Cy Young Award.

 

Who knows, Carpenter may wear down and end up with an ERA of 4, and all of this will be a moot point.

 

I know for sure that everybody realizes what a great year Clemens is having. I just HOPE that alot of people realize what an unbelievable year Carpenter is having (the year for a NL starting pitcher in 6 or 8 years).

 

indifferent wrote: I think herein lies the problem. Carp this year and Pujols the last two/three years are finishing second. Any other year or any other league, less Bonds, Lee, and Clemens, either of them could take home the award. I'm not saying it's not legitimate, I just think Cards fans are sick of their guys finishing second.

Edit - and their team

 

 

K-Town wrote: That's probably about as accurate as anything that's been posted in this thread. Good post, indifferent.

 

I've also admitted to being a "homer" a LONG time ago. I've also said that it wouldn't be unfair for Clemens to win. Is that not "middle ground"?

 

 

As for being banned. Don't tell me what I would and wouldn't be banned for. I WAS banned. I made two posts before being banned. Here they are. Tell me which one is out of line:

 

Absolutely laughable.

 

Morris said exactly what he should have said. The Brewers were indeed ahead of the Cubs, when he made that statement. If he said anything else, he'd be insulting the Brewers.

 

Larussa loves his 2nd baseman, and speaks highly of him. THAT'S bulletin board material?

 

Grudz basically says that things haven't worked out for the Cubs. Well........ have they?

 

As for "teaching Morris a lesson", my advice is to do it on the field, with the bats. That's the problem with the Cubs. They're more concerned about "proving a point", as opposed to proving their a good team.

 

 

Morris probably had the worst year of his career last year. Bad luck for the Cardinals?

 

Kent Mercker has a career 4.14 ERA, but puts up a 2.55 with the Cubs last year. Good luck for the Cubs?

 

Of course not. These things happen, good and bad, on every team.

 

 

Saying that the Cards are "lucky" is a pretty weak argument. You guys are above that.

 

Which rule did I break?

[K-Town]

It also helps if you don't just make up the opposing stance.

 

Like I said, if there is no opposing stance, then why even ask the question?

 

It's fine to have an opposing stance. That was the nature of this thread. But you might want to back it up with something more than "Clemens isn't durable."

 

You know I've given you more than that. Let's not go over this again. I'm accused of "making up" the opposing stance. If that's the case, then it implies that there IS no opposing stance. So why ask the question?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I've been called "ignorant" twice. Do you want me to show you the posts? To me, that's "ugly".

 

I only find one post that says "evaluating a pitcher on Wins is just plain ignorant". That's attacking the argument, not you.

[K-Town]

I've been called "ignorant" twice. Do you want me to show you the posts? To me, that's "ugly".

 

I only find one post that says "evaluating a pitcher on Wins is just plain ignorant". That's attacking the argument, not you.

 

Like I said, implying "ignorance" about anyone is ugly, in my opinion. You're entitled to disagree.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I've been called "ignorant" twice. Do you want me to show you the posts? To me, that's "ugly".

 

I only find one post that says "evaluating a pitcher on Wins is just plain ignorant". That's attacking the argument, not you.

 

Like I said, implying "ignorance" about anyone is ugly, in my opinion. You're entitled to disagree.

 

That's fine, but attacking the argument in that fashion falls within the parameters of the community, so don't be upset when it happens.