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

[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.

 

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.

 

I'm hardly "upset". I just think there are more appropriate ways to attack an argument, that's all.

[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.

 

I'm hardly "upset". I just think there are more appropriate ways to attack an argument, that's all.

 

Okay. I didn't mean to imply that you were upset, I meant in the future. Sorry about that.

[Warpticon]

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?

 

What does that have to do with what I said at all? I said don't just MAKE IT UP. You know, like you did with the whole "You're being hypocritical because you were behind Clemens last year and then changed the rules to support Clemens this year" bit. You'd be hard pressed to find many on this board with that stance, but you seemed pretty determined to make that the way people here stand. (and if you weren't tying those beliefs to us, then why counter with them when we're the ones you're talking to?) And since you chose to comment authoritatively on something you did not understand, then you were being ignorant. Period.

 

Incidentally, "Ignorant" isn't an insult, contrary to popular belief. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant; it's simply lacking information. You should at least acknowledge that you lack information, though, and certainly not label people based on missing information. I certainly don't see any cause for you to be offended over being called ignorant when you're calling people hypocritical for having beliefs you don't know that they have. At least when I called your comments ignorant, I did so on the basis of things actually mentioned in this discussion, unlike your comments on hypocrisy.

[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?

 

What does that have to do with what I said at all? I said don't just MAKE IT UP. You know, like you did with the whole "You're being hypocritical because you were behind Clemens last year and then changed the rules to support Clemens this year" bit. You'd be hard pressed to find many on this board with that stance, but you seemed pretty determined to make that the way people here stand. (and if you weren't tying those beliefs to us, then why counter with them when we're the ones you're talking to?) And since you chose to comment authoritatively on something you did not understand, then you were being ignorant. Period.

 

Incidentally, "Ignorant" isn't an insult, contrary to popular belief. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant; it's simply lacking information. You should at least acknowledge that you lack information, though, and certainly not label people based on missing information. I certainly don't see any cause for you to be offended over being called ignorant when you're calling people hypocritical for having beliefs you don't know that they have. At least when I called your comments ignorant, I did so on the basis of things actually mentioned in this discussion, unlike your comments on hypocrisy.

 

I meant that it would be "hypocritical" for Clemens to win the award this year for the exact opposite reasons that he won last year. THAT'S why I think Carpenter should win, because that's the precedence that's been set. I never said that anybody here agreed with it. I simply pointed out that it's the precedence, so what should be good for the goose should be good for the gander. Nobody here has to agree, but if the voters use that philosophy when voting, then it would indeed be hypocritical of them.

 

My stance is that Carpenter should be considered for the Cy Young Award. That's my "stance" (the pages of evidence and opinions that I've presented aren't "my stance", they are simply provided to support "my stance"). You're saying that my stance is "made up".

 

Based on the title of the thread, there are only two possible stances:

 

1) Clemens should win

2) Carpenter should win

 

I took the 2nd stance. You said it was "made up", which only leaves one possible stance. If there's only one possible stance, then why ask the question to begin with?

 

 

As for "ignorance", it means "showing a lack of knowledge or intelligence". I consider that an insult. In my opinion it's an ugly word. That's my stance on "ignorance". Is my stance on that "made up", also?

[Warpticon]

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?

 

What does that have to do with what I said at all? I said don't just MAKE IT UP. You know, like you did with the whole "You're being hypocritical because you were behind Clemens last year and then changed the rules to support Clemens this year" bit. You'd be hard pressed to find many on this board with that stance, but you seemed pretty determined to make that the way people here stand. (and if you weren't tying those beliefs to us, then why counter with them when we're the ones you're talking to?) And since you chose to comment authoritatively on something you did not understand, then you were being ignorant. Period.

 

Incidentally, "Ignorant" isn't an insult, contrary to popular belief. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant; it's simply lacking information. You should at least acknowledge that you lack information, though, and certainly not label people based on missing information. I certainly don't see any cause for you to be offended over being called ignorant when you're calling people hypocritical for having beliefs you don't know that they have. At least when I called your comments ignorant, I did so on the basis of things actually mentioned in this discussion, unlike your comments on hypocrisy.

 

I meant that it would be "hypocritical" for Clemens to win the award this year for the exact opposite reasons that he won last year. THAT'S why I think Carpenter should win, because that's the precedence that's been set. I never said that anybody here agreed with it. I simply pointed out that it's the precedence, so what should be good for the goose should be good for the gander. Nobody here has to agree, but if the voters use that philosophy when voting, then it would indeed be hypocritical of them.

 

My stance is that Carpenter should be considered for the Cy Young Award. That's my "stance" (the pages of evidence and opinions that I've presented aren't "my stance", they are simply provided to support "my stance"). You're saying that my stance is "made up".

 

Based on the title of the thread, there are only two possible stances:

 

1) Clemens should win

2) Carpenter should win

 

I took the 2nd stance. You said it was "made up", which only leaves one possible stance. If there's only one possible stance, then why ask the question to begin with?

 

 

As for "ignorance", it means "showing a lack of knowledge or intelligence". I consider that an insult. In my opinion it's an ugly word. That's my stance on "ignorance". Is my stance on that "made up", also?

 

Jesus, man. It's pretty evident that what I was talking about was this:

 

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.

 

If you meant the voters specifically, then that's one thing, but I hope you can see that it doesn't exactly read that way. The STANCE that everybody (which would presumably include the people present, since you didn't specify who you were talking about) had changed their minds for the sake of Clemens was what I was referring to as ignorant.

 

Although your whole "Clemens wants to hit the showers, while Carpenter wants to stay out and win" argument seems lacking in foundation as well, the above was what I was referring to. I figured that would have been evident, as my entire post was referring to THAT specifically, but I guess not.

[K-Town]

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.

 

If you meant the voters specifically, then that's one thing, but I hope you can see that it doesn't exactly read that way. The STANCE that everybody (which would presumably include the people present, since you didn't specify who you were talking about) had changed their minds for the sake of Clemens was what I was referring to as ignorant.

 

Although your whole "Clemens wants to hit the showers, while Carpenter wants to stay out and win" argument seems lacking in foundation as well, the above was what I was referring to. I figured that would have been evident, as my entire post was referring to THAT specifically, but I guess not.

 

I meant the voters, or more specifically, the media (shows like Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption, etc.). I probably should have specified.

 

"Clemens wants to hit the showers" was more sarcastic than ignorant, in my opinion.

 

Basically, I can't, for the life of me, understand why Clemens isn't expected to go longer than 7 innings. The only logical reason is that he's being "coddled". Is it because he's old? Maybe. Regardless, if he's being coddled (which he apparently is), then I don't have as much respect for him as I do for a guy who can't WAIT to get out there in the 8th & 9th inning and finish what he started for his team.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

I meant the voters, or more specifically, the media (shows like Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption, etc.). I probably should have specified.

 

"Clemens wants to hit the showers" was more sarcastic than ignorant, in my opinion.

 

Basically, I can't, for the life of me, understand why Clemens isn't expected to go longer than 7 innings. The only logical reason is that he's being "coddled". Is it because he's old? Maybe. Regardless, if he's being coddled (which he apparently is), then I don't have as much respect for him as I do for a guy who can't WAIT to get out there in the 8th & 9th inning and finish what he started for his team.

 

See, that's the thing. From reading that, it sounds like you assume that Clemens doesn't want to go out there for the 9th inning. You have no way of knowing he doesn't want to. There is a very good chance Garner is just being SMART about it and pulling him early. Just because he pulled himself out of one game after 8 innings does not mean he doesn't can't finish, or doesn't want to be out there every other game.

[K-Town]

I meant the voters, or more specifically, the media (shows like Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption, etc.). I probably should have specified.

 

"Clemens wants to hit the showers" was more sarcastic than ignorant, in my opinion.

 

Basically, I can't, for the life of me, understand why Clemens isn't expected to go longer than 7 innings. The only logical reason is that he's being "coddled". Is it because he's old? Maybe. Regardless, if he's being coddled (which he apparently is), then I don't have as much respect for him as I do for a guy who can't WAIT to get out there in the 8th & 9th inning and finish what he started for his team.

 

See, that's the thing. From reading that, it sounds like you assume that Clemens doesn't want to go out there for the 9th inning. You have no way of knowing he doesn't want to. There is a very good chance Garner is just being SMART about it and pulling him early. Just because he pulled himself out of one game after 8 innings does not mean he doesn't can't finish, or doesn't want to be out there every other game.

 

Maybe.

 

I think a smart manager knows when a guy is "spent", and doesn't have to assume that he's done after 7 innings. Either Garner isn't very sharp, or Clemens truly is "spent" after 7. I don't know. I haven't seen enough of Clemens' games to say one way or another. I know that Carpenter would go out kicking and screaming if he were pitching well and Larussa tried to pull him.

 

Another issue might be the fact that he's not getting any runs, so Garner may feel compelled to pinch hit for him late in games, to try to get something going.

 

Looking at his pitch counts, he hasn't given himself a CHANCE to go into the 8th and 9th innings all that often, because he's working pretty hard to get through the first 7 (kinda like what you guys see with Prior). It's hard to believe that a guy with Clemens WHIP is averaging 100 pitches through 7 innings. I haven't seen him pitch very often, but he must be running up alot of counts, for whatever reason (Not wanting to challenge hitters? I don't know).

 

It's probably a combination of alot of things, and quite frankly, I'm probably being overly critical because I'm a "homer". :wink:

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

I meant the voters, or more specifically, the media (shows like Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption, etc.). I probably should have specified.

 

"Clemens wants to hit the showers" was more sarcastic than ignorant, in my opinion.

 

Basically, I can't, for the life of me, understand why Clemens isn't expected to go longer than 7 innings. The only logical reason is that he's being "coddled". Is it because he's old? Maybe. Regardless, if he's being coddled (which he apparently is), then I don't have as much respect for him as I do for a guy who can't WAIT to get out there in the 8th & 9th inning and finish what he started for his team.

 

See, that's the thing. From reading that, it sounds like you assume that Clemens doesn't want to go out there for the 9th inning. You have no way of knowing he doesn't want to. There is a very good chance Garner is just being SMART about it and pulling him early. Just because he pulled himself out of one game after 8 innings does not mean he doesn't can't finish, or doesn't want to be out there every other game.

 

Maybe.

 

I think a smart manager knows when a guy is "spent", and doesn't have to assume that he's done after 7 innings. Either Garner isn't very sharp, or Clemens truly is "spent" after 7. I don't know. I haven't seen enough of Clemens' games to say one way or another. I know that Carpenter would go out kicking and screaming if he were pitching well and Larussa tried to pull him.

 

Another issue might be the fact that he's not getting any runs, so Garner may feel compelled to pinch hit for him late in games, to try to get something going.

 

Looking at his pitch counts, he hasn't given himself a CHANCE to go into the 8th and 9th innings all that often, because he's working pretty hard to get through the first 7 (kinda like what you guys see with Prior). It's hard to believe that a guy with Clemens WHIP is averaging 100 pitches through 7 innings. I haven't seen him pitch very often, but he must be running up alot of counts, for whatever reason (Not wanting to challenge hitters? I don't know).

 

It's probably a combination of alot of things, and quite frankly, I'm probably being overly critical because I'm a "homer". :wink:

 

Honestly, it's probably a combination of all those things. Garner is probably protecting his 43 year old arm a little bit, but Clemens might just be spent by that time. We don't know. The pinch hit thing makes a ton of sense, and I think someone mentioned that yesterday.

 

He throws a lot of pitches because that's the way he pitches. He throws out of the zone a lot to get guys to chase or throw them off. He is a lot like Prior, both strikeout pitchers that work there way around the zone, and often go outside it.

 

Carp may have to be dragged kicking and screaming, but for a guy that has only gone 200 innings once in his career, and then immediately had to go on the DL after that, he might want to be smart and let the bullpen do some of the work.

 

No one here is ripping you for being a homer or a Cards fan. The fact is, most of the people that have posted in this thread probably hate Roger Clemens. I know I do. So they aren't just choosing a side. They're ripping you for ignoring facts when they are presented and making assumptions like Clemens is incapable of finishing a game.

[K-Town]

I'm not ignoring facts. Like I've said, I know full well that there's a solid case for Clemens.

 

I understand your point about Carpenter's injury history. You have to keep in mind that the Cards have been INCREDIBLY patient with him. Carpenter said he felt good enough to pitch in the playoffs last year, but the Cards refused to risk it (Carpenter thanked them for making his health a priority by signing a 3-year contract for a ridiculously low dollar amount last winter). I think the thing to watch with him is pitch counts and whether he's laboring in late innings. He truly seems to get stronger in the 8th or 9th innings. I think that's a good sign. If he's getting tired, the mechanics go south, and that's when you re-injure, I think. That's not the case with Carpenter. He's been incredibly efficient. He's actually more of a strikeout pitcher than Clemens is at this point, but he's efficient enough to get himself into the late innings. I credit him for that, and it's pretty much my main argument in his favor (although it's clearly not enough of an argument to sway any opinions).

[gus_dog]

I'm not ignoring facts. Like I've said, I know full well that there's a solid case for Clemens.

 

I understand your point about Carpenter's injury history. You have to keep in mind that the Cards have been INCREDIBLY patient with him. Carpenter said he felt good enough to pitch in the playoffs last year, but the Cards refused to risk it (Carpenter thanked them for making his health a priority by signing a 3-year contract for a ridiculously low dollar amount last winter). I think the thing to watch with him is pitch counts and whether he's laboring in late innings. He truly seems to get stronger in the 8th or 9th innings. I think that's a good sign. If he's getting tired, the mechanics go south, and that's when you re-injure, I think. That's not the case with Carpenter. He's been incredibly efficient. He's actually more of a strikeout pitcher than Clemens is at this point, but he's efficient enough to get himself into the late innings. I credit him for that, and it's pretty much my main argument in his favor (although it's clearly not enough of an argument to sway any opinions).

 

There ya go.

[K-Town]

I'm not ignoring facts. Like I've said, I know full well that there's a solid case for Clemens.

 

I understand your point about Carpenter's injury history. You have to keep in mind that the Cards have been INCREDIBLY patient with him. Carpenter said he felt good enough to pitch in the playoffs last year, but the Cards refused to risk it (Carpenter thanked them for making his health a priority by signing a 3-year contract for a ridiculously low dollar amount last winter). I think the thing to watch with him is pitch counts and whether he's laboring in late innings. He truly seems to get stronger in the 8th or 9th innings. I think that's a good sign. If he's getting tired, the mechanics go south, and that's when you re-injure, I think. That's not the case with Carpenter. He's been incredibly efficient. He's actually more of a strikeout pitcher than Clemens is at this point, but he's efficient enough to get himself into the late innings. I credit him for that, and it's pretty much my main argument in his favor (although it's clearly not enough of an argument to sway any opinions).

 

There ya go.

 

Let's face it, are there EVER any opinions swayed about ANYTHING on these message boards? This isn't exactly a revelation.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

I'm not ignoring facts. Like I've said, I know full well that there's a solid case for Clemens.

 

I understand your point about Carpenter's injury history. You have to keep in mind that the Cards have been INCREDIBLY patient with him. Carpenter said he felt good enough to pitch in the playoffs last year, but the Cards refused to risk it (Carpenter thanked them for making his health a priority by signing a 3-year contract for a ridiculously low dollar amount last winter). I think the thing to watch with him is pitch counts and whether he's laboring in late innings. He truly seems to get stronger in the 8th or 9th innings. I think that's a good sign. If he's getting tired, the mechanics go south, and that's when you re-injure, I think. That's not the case with Carpenter. He's been incredibly efficient. He's actually more of a strikeout pitcher than Clemens is at this point, but he's efficient enough to get himself into the late innings. I credit him for that, and it's pretty much my main argument in his favor (although it's clearly not enough of an argument to sway any opinions).

 

There ya go.

 

Let's face it, are there EVER any opinions swayed about ANYTHING on these message boards? This isn't exactly a revelation.

 

Don't poke the bear... I think he was pointing out the fact that you finally backed up your argument, not that opinions can't be swayed.

 

This isn't Cards Talk. People here are willing to listen to opposing arguments, and many opinions get swayed. Look around for a while, you'll see what I mean. While there are some homers on here, there are also some very good baseball people, unlike some other message boards.

 

And on that note, it's lunchtime.

[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.

 

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?

 

Boy, I should have known that would come back to bite me, and you would go dig up some post that you think got you banned in the past? Have you communicated with the moderator who banned you? I really can't answer the specific reason you got banned since I did not do it. I won't apologize, since this activity is outside the realm of my control.

 

I have found, however, that opposing views are welcome here as long as the posters are respectful and they do not bait. That's been my experience, and speaking to your other post, I have not seen anything in this thread that would merit banning.

 

That's not to say that someone might not have been 'wrongfully banned' before, but I cannot speak to that - only the mod should answer for that action. I think if you persued it with the Mod, they would present their case (however weak or strong it may be).

 

I seem to recall there have been periods of time when nsbb was inundated with opposing fan trolls, and the Mods might've had a short leash on them. It is too bad if you wrongfully got nabbed in an 'internet forum dragnet', but you are here now, so I suggest you let it go.

 

When I was referring to middle ground, perhaps you might consider that the number of complete games a pitcher throws might not be the leading indicator for making them Cy-worthy. I should have been more specific.

 

I never saw anyone call YOU ignorant (until Warpticon just did), but I did see where people referred to a comment as such, and yes, there is a difference. Warpticon actually made a very good post on the term ignorant as well.

 

Attack the post, not the poster.

[K-Town]

Boy, I should have known that would come back to bite me, and you would go dig up some post that you think got you banned in the past? Have you communicated with the moderator who banned you? I really can't answer the specific reason you got banned since I did not do it. I won't apologize, since this activity is outside the realm of my control.

 

I have found, however, that opposing views are welcome here as long as the posters are respectful and they do not bait. That's been my experience, and speaking to your other post, I have not seen anything in this thread that would merit banning.

 

That's not to say that someone might not have been 'wrongfully banned' before, but I cannot speak to that - only the mod should answer for that action. I think if you persued it with the Mod, they would present their case (however weak or strong it may be).

 

I seem to recall there have been periods of time when nsbb was inundated with opposing fan trolls, and the Mods might've had a short leash on them. It is too bad if you wrongfully got nabbed in an 'internet forum dragnet', but you are here now, so I suggest you let it go.

 

When I was referring to middle ground, perhaps you might consider that the number of complete games a pitcher throws might not be the leading indicator for making them Cy-worthy. I should have been more specific.

 

I never saw anyone call YOU ignorant (until Warpticon just did), but I did see where people referred to a comment as such, and yes, there is a difference. Warpticon actually made a very good post on the term ignorant as well.

 

Attack the post, not the poster.

 

First of all, thanks for being cool.

 

I didn't have to dig very deep for the posts that got me banned. It was just last week. :lol:

 

I just noticed a PM from the mod concerning my banned account, but last week I couldn't for the life of me find a link to contact the mod. But contacting the mod definitely was my intention, if I hadn't been too "ignorant" to figure out how to do that (I still don't know how to do it, quite frankly).

 

Anyway, I'm not here to cause trouble. I would have never started a thread on behalf of Carpenter, but the thread was there, so I figured I'd take the opportunity to toot Carp's horn a little bit (as noted, Clemens doesn't need any "tooting" on his behalf).

 

Anyway, thanks again for being reasonable.

[wolf stansson]

FWIW,

Phil Garner had this to say:

"It's going to be hard not to vote for Carpenter," Garner said. "If Roger keeps going like he's going and Carpenter keeps going like he's going, it's going to be a tough call."

Seems like that is the consensus among the media as well.

[nilodnayr]

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.

 

Yeah that was me and I 100% stand by that statement. By ignorant I meant that evaluating a pitcher by wins is ignoring what actually goes into a win. In order to win a game, the offense actually has to score runs. Which the astros have not done this year for clemens. Top and bottom half of innings are played in baseball and the pitcher (other than of course when they come up to bat) only have control over half of the game. And even then they dont have full control, as they must rely on their defense at least some of the time. Thats why we like to use stats that a pitcher has more control over to evaluate them. I dont mean any of this in a condescending manner, I am just trying to justify the use of the term ignorant.

[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.

 

Yeah that was me and I 100% stand by that statement. By ignorant I meant that evaluating a pitcher by wins is ignoring what actually goes into a win. In order to win a game, the offense actually has to score runs. Which the astros have not done this year for clemens. Top and bottom half of innings are played in baseball and the pitcher (other than of course when they come up to bat) only have control over half of the game. And even then they dont have full control, as they must rely on their defense at least some of the time. Thats why we like to use stats that a pitcher has more control over to evaluate them. I dont mean any of this in a condescending manner, I am just trying to justify the use of the term ignorant.

 

Right. I don't disagree that wins don't tell the whole story. But the farther a pitcher goes into a game, the better chance he has of winning. So "ignorant" is a little harsh, in my opinion.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

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.

 

Yeah that was me and I 100% stand by that statement. By ignorant I meant that evaluating a pitcher by wins is ignoring what actually goes into a win. In order to win a game, the offense actually has to score runs. Which the astros have not done this year for clemens. Top and bottom half of innings are played in baseball and the pitcher (other than of course when they come up to bat) only have control over half of the game. And even then they dont have full control, as they must rely on their defense at least some of the time. Thats why we like to use stats that a pitcher has more control over to evaluate them. I dont mean any of this in a condescending manner, I am just trying to justify the use of the term ignorant.

 

Right. I don't disagree that wins don't tell the whole story. But the farther a pitcher goes into a game, the better chance he has of winning. So "ignorant" is a little harsh, in my opinion.

 

I'll agree that the deeper a pitcher goes into games factors into the equation, but it's not like Clemens has done what he's done by pitching five innings and out. He's pitched six and seven innings in most of his starts and even eight in a few. His win totals are the result of some miniscule run support, not any lack of effort on his part.

 

Finally, I think Clemens deserves this Cy Young because what he's done this year is likely the best pitching performance we've witnessed in the last 10-15 years at least, and maybe the last half century. It would be a shame if that weren't rewarded with a Cy Young.

 

Is Clemens over-hyped? Maybe. I'm not a fan of Clemens. In fact, since I hate the Astros almost as much as I hate the Cardinals and I also hate the Yankees....Clemens has never been one of my favorites. You've made a rather compelling case that maybe Clemens shouldn't have received the Cy last season, but you've done nothing to make me believe he doesn't deserve it this season.

 

Wins are a much over-rated stat to me. I won't say they are completely worthless, and at times they may reflect a pitcher's perseverance or willingness to hang around long enough to keep his team in a game, but I don't think Clemens can be knocked for having a low win total. He's just been a victim of some of the worst run support I've ever witnessed. Considering he hasn't had a start where he's given up more than three runs, not only do I find it amazing that he only has so few wins, I can't see how he's ended up with 4 losses!

[K-Town]

nm Edited August 18, 2005 by K-Town

[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.

 

Yeah that was me and I 100% stand by that statement. By ignorant I meant that evaluating a pitcher by wins is ignoring what actually goes into a win. In order to win a game, the offense actually has to score runs. Which the astros have not done this year for clemens. Top and bottom half of innings are played in baseball and the pitcher (other than of course when they come up to bat) only have control over half of the game. And even then they dont have full control, as they must rely on their defense at least some of the time. Thats why we like to use stats that a pitcher has more control over to evaluate them. I dont mean any of this in a condescending manner, I am just trying to justify the use of the term ignorant.

 

Right. I don't disagree that wins don't tell the whole story. But the farther a pitcher goes into a game, the better chance he has of winning. So "ignorant" is a little harsh, in my opinion.

 

I'll agree that the deeper a pitcher goes into games factors into the equation, but it's not like Clemens has done what he's done by pitching five innings and out. He's pitched six and seven innings in most of his starts and even eight in a few. His win totals are the result of some miniscule run support, not any lack of effort on his part.

 

Finally, I think Clemens deserves this Cy Young because what he's done this year is likely the best pitching performance we've witnessed in the last 10-15 years at least, and maybe the last half century. It would be a shame if that weren't rewarded with a Cy Young.

 

Is Clemens over-hyped? Maybe. I'm not a fan of Clemens. In fact, since I hate the Astros almost as much as I hate the Cardinals and I also hate the Yankees....Clemens has never been one of my favorites. You've made a rather compelling case that maybe Clemens shouldn't have received the Cy last season, but you've done nothing to make me believe he doesn't deserve it this season.

 

Wins are a much over-rated stat to me. I won't say they are completely worthless, and at times they may reflect a pitcher's perseverance or willingness to hang around long enough to keep his team in a game, but I don't think Clemens can be knocked for having a low win total. He's just been a victim of some of the worst run support I've ever witnessed. Considering he hasn't had a start where he's given up more than three runs, not only do I find it amazing that he only has so few wins, I can't see how he's ended up with 4 losses!

 

That's reasonable.

 

There's still plenty of baseball to play. My guess is that one of these guys (I have no clue which one) won't be able to keep up their current pace. If they both keep close to the current pace, it's going to be an absolute shame that one of them has to lose the award.

 

Meanwhile, the voters are going to have some 'splainin' to do if they give the award to Clemens this year for the exact opposite reasons that they gave it to him last year.

 

Why do wins matter? Well, quite frankly, if your team isn't going to score any runs, then do you NEED a Cy Young Award winner on the mound? The Astros could have thrown Tom Arnold out there and gotten the same results that Clemens got, in those games where Houston didn't score. Meanwhile, the Cardinals couldn't have thrown Tom Arnold out there, and gotten the same results that Carpenter has gotten. In that regard, Clemens hasn't been the "difference-maker" that Carpenter has been. It's not Clemens' fault, but he still didn't get any better results in those games when Houston didn't score than an average pitcher would have gotten.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

I hear Tom Arnold has a wicked slider.

 

By the way, I never thought I'd see the day when Tom Arnold would be reference on these boards, especially in a thread about the Cy Young. So for that, you get a =D>

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

That's reasonable.

 

There's still plenty of baseball to play. My guess is that one of these guys (I have no clue which one) won't be able to keep up their current pace. If they both keep close to the current pace, it's going to be an absolute shame that one of them has to lose the award.

 

Meanwhile, the voters are going to have some 'splainin' to do if they give the award to Clemens this year for the exact opposite reasons that they gave it to him last year.

 

Why do wins matter? Well, quite frankly, if your team isn't going to score any runs, then do you NEED a Cy Young Award winner on the mound? The Astros could have thrown Tom Arnold out there and gotten the same results that Clemens got, in those games where Houston didn't score. Meanwhile, the Cardinals couldn't have thrown Tom Arnold out there, and gotten the same results that Carpenter has gotten. In that regard, Clemens hasn't been the "difference-maker" that Carpenter has been. It's not Clemens' fault, but he still didn't get any better results in those games when Houston didn't score than an average pitcher would have gotten.

 

You're right that if you're team doesn't score runs it doesn't matter if your pitcher gives up 1 or 6 runs, the end result is the same. However, that means nothing in the debate over who has been the better pitcher. The Cy Young award is an individual accomplishment, not an award to go to the pitcher whose team has been more successful. The World Series trophy is a team accomplishment, the Cy Young is not.

 

I don't see how run-support should in any way disqualify or detract from Clemens getting the award. In fact, while I'm trying not to be demeaning, your argument above seems rather ridiculous. No one has argued that Carpenter hasn't been money for the Cardinals. He has. However, when looking at the numbers Clemens has been even more dominating for the Astros. The Astros as a team haven't taken advantage of his dominance, but I, in no way, think that should have any bearing on the Cy Young race.

[gus_dog]

I hear Tom Arnold has a wicked slider.

 

ayah, wiiicked haaad coor!

[K-Town]

Comparing Tom Arnold to Roger Clemens is "ridiculous?? Really? C'mon, use your imagination!! :lol: :lol:

 

Seriously though,

 

You can make a case that Clemens has been the better pitcher this year.

 

Likewise, I can probably make a case that Carpenter has been the more valuable pitcher this year. Why? Because there's no value in losing, no matter how well you perform. The game is about winning. If your team didn't win, then there's pretty much no value in what you did that day.

 

Which would be more valuable to you:

 

1) A 2005 Lamborghini with no gas in the tank.

 

2) A 2005 Pontiac Grand Prix with a full tank of gas.

 

 

Assume that you had both cars in the driveway for the summer. Both nice cars. The first one is probably the better car, but is pretty worthless (it's not the car's fault that there's no gas in the tank, though).

 

 

So who do you give the Cy Young Award to? The better pitcher, or the more valuable pitcher?