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

[K-Town]

My understanding is that "number of pitches" isn't as important as the time frame that the pitches are thrown in, or how much the pitcher is "laboring" when he's throwing the pitches. Carpenter CLEARLY isn't laboring in the late innings (as evident by his OPS against), so it's pretty much a non-factor.

 

Marquis would be an example of a guy who is killing himself, despite the fact that he's thrown fewer pitches than Carpenter.

 

But you made it a huge factor when you assumed Clemens was throwing more pitches. Now that you found out he's not and that Clemens is throwing less, it's "pretty much a non-factor?" Don't bring it up if it's a non-factor.

 

But it's okay, because Carp is "so efficient".

 

 

When I said "more pitches", I meant "more pitches per inning pitched". Sorry, I should have clarified that.

[K-Town]

[Fair enough. And I won't dispute that the metrics that you're using will tell us MOST of the story. I'm just not sure that they tell us everything, especially when a team is 13-15 when Clemens starts, as opposed to 22-4 when Carpenter starts. I don't value "wins" much, but that's just too much of a difference to ignore. Unfortunately, Clemens' "value" decreases if his team is unable to win, with or without him. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I'm sure we've been down that road more than once.

 

Like I said, your metrics tell "most" of the story.

 

I just don't fault a pitcher because his team is shut-out or only scores one run on a day he pitches. A pitcher's job in the "win" equation is to give up as few runs as he can over as many innings as he can. He has little, since he bats I won't say no, control over how many runs his team scores.

 

Clemens value decreases none if his team is unable to win; his team just failed to take advantage of the value he brings.

 

 

I quantify "value" with "importance". How "important" is it that he only gives up 1 run, if his team isn't going to score? He may as well have give up 6, and he would have been just as "important".

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

I quantify "value" with "importance". How "important" is it that he only gives up 1 run, if his team isn't going to score? He may as well have give up 6, and he would have been just as "important".

 

So you base his value on his team scoring runs. That's what I thought. If he only gives up one run, he's given his team a great value because all they need to do is score two to win. If they can't do that, then his value was wasted. There is a huge value on keeping your team in the game.

 

On that note, it's lunchtime.

Edited September 7, 2005 by BleedCubbieBlue81

[ConstableRabbit]

[Fair enough. And I won't dispute that the metrics that you're using will tell us MOST of the story. I'm just not sure that they tell us everything, especially when a team is 13-15 when Clemens starts, as opposed to 22-4 when Carpenter starts. I don't value "wins" much, but that's just too much of a difference to ignore. Unfortunately, Clemens' "value" decreases if his team is unable to win, with or without him. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I'm sure we've been down that road more than once.

 

Like I said, your metrics tell "most" of the story.

 

I just don't fault a pitcher because his team is shut-out or only scores one run on a day he pitches. A pitcher's job in the "win" equation is to give up as few runs as he can over as many innings as he can. He has little, since he bats I won't say no, control over how many runs his team scores.

 

Clemens value decreases none if his team is unable to win; his team just failed to take advantage of the value he brings.

 

 

I quantify "value" with "importance". How "important" is it that he only gives up 1 run, if his team isn't going to score? He may as well have give up 6, and he would have been just as "important".

 

I've read 35 pages of this circling argument and I've come to the conclusion that K-Town feels that the Cy Young goes to the most valuable pitcher to his team whereas the rest of us think that it should go to the best pitcher, i.e. whoever has literally pitched the best.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

[Fair enough. And I won't dispute that the metrics that you're using will tell us MOST of the story. I'm just not sure that they tell us everything, especially when a team is 13-15 when Clemens starts, as opposed to 22-4 when Carpenter starts. I don't value "wins" much, but that's just too much of a difference to ignore. Unfortunately, Clemens' "value" decreases if his team is unable to win, with or without him. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I'm sure we've been down that road more than once.

 

Like I said, your metrics tell "most" of the story.

 

I just don't fault a pitcher because his team is shut-out or only scores one run on a day he pitches. A pitcher's job in the "win" equation is to give up as few runs as he can over as many innings as he can. He has little, since he bats I won't say no, control over how many runs his team scores.

 

Clemens value decreases none if his team is unable to win; his team just failed to take advantage of the value he brings.

 

 

I quantify "value" with "importance". How "important" is it that he only gives up 1 run, if his team isn't going to score? He may as well have give up 6, and he would have been just as "important".

 

That then still is valuing team performance. I see the Cy Young as an award for the "best" (as nebulous as that is) pitcher. How his team performs matters very little in that equation.

 

Furthermore, if you want to look beyond the metrics, is some specifics in Clemens How many games has Clemens pitched and recieved a loss or a no decision when his team scored 1 or fewer runs? It's a ridiculous amount. I've looked it up before and right now can't look it up...but go to a game log and see. I can't fault Clemens for having that kind of "bad luck."

 

When looking at the overall picture, Clemens still is my hands down winner. It's gotten closer for me over the last month or so, but still not close enough for me to discount what has been an amazing season that Clemens is producing.

[gus_dog]

[Fair enough. And I won't dispute that the metrics that you're using will tell us MOST of the story. I'm just not sure that they tell us everything, especially when a team is 13-15 when Clemens starts, as opposed to 22-4 when Carpenter starts. I don't value "wins" much, but that's just too much of a difference to ignore. Unfortunately, Clemens' "value" decreases if his team is unable to win, with or without him. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I'm sure we've been down that road more than once.

 

Like I said, your metrics tell "most" of the story.

 

I just don't fault a pitcher because his team is shut-out or only scores one run on a day he pitches. A pitcher's job in the "win" equation is to give up as few runs as he can over as many innings as he can. He has little, since he bats I won't say no, control over how many runs his team scores.

 

Clemens value decreases none if his team is unable to win; his team just failed to take advantage of the value he brings.

 

 

I quantify "value" with "importance". How "important" is it that he only gives up 1 run, if his team isn't going to score? He may as well have give up 6, and he would have been just as "important".

 

But he didn't, and therein lies a major flaw in this approach. He didn't, and in fact, he performed excellently. What he may have done is not relevant, whereas what he actually did is very relevant.

[K-Town]

[Fair enough. And I won't dispute that the metrics that you're using will tell us MOST of the story. I'm just not sure that they tell us everything, especially when a team is 13-15 when Clemens starts, as opposed to 22-4 when Carpenter starts. I don't value "wins" much, but that's just too much of a difference to ignore. Unfortunately, Clemens' "value" decreases if his team is unable to win, with or without him. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I'm sure we've been down that road more than once.

 

Like I said, your metrics tell "most" of the story.

 

I just don't fault a pitcher because his team is shut-out or only scores one run on a day he pitches. A pitcher's job in the "win" equation is to give up as few runs as he can over as many innings as he can. He has little, since he bats I won't say no, control over how many runs his team scores.

 

Clemens value decreases none if his team is unable to win; his team just failed to take advantage of the value he brings.

 

 

I quantify "value" with "importance". How "important" is it that he only gives up 1 run, if his team isn't going to score? He may as well have give up 6, and he would have been just as "important".

 

I've read 35 pages of this circling argument and I've come to the conclusion that K-Town feels that the Cy Young goes to the most valuable pitcher to his team whereas the rest of us think that it should go to the best pitcher, i.e. whoever has literally pitched the best.

 

You didn't have to read all 35 pages. I fessed up pretty early that I'm a bit of a "homer".

 

And once again (as the circle continues), the pitcher who has pitched the best this year is probably Chad Cordero.

[K-Town]

[Fair enough. And I won't dispute that the metrics that you're using will tell us MOST of the story. I'm just not sure that they tell us everything, especially when a team is 13-15 when Clemens starts, as opposed to 22-4 when Carpenter starts. I don't value "wins" much, but that's just too much of a difference to ignore. Unfortunately, Clemens' "value" decreases if his team is unable to win, with or without him. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I'm sure we've been down that road more than once.

 

Like I said, your metrics tell "most" of the story.

 

I just don't fault a pitcher because his team is shut-out or only scores one run on a day he pitches. A pitcher's job in the "win" equation is to give up as few runs as he can over as many innings as he can. He has little, since he bats I won't say no, control over how many runs his team scores.

 

Clemens value decreases none if his team is unable to win; his team just failed to take advantage of the value he brings.

 

 

I quantify "value" with "importance". How "important" is it that he only gives up 1 run, if his team isn't going to score? He may as well have give up 6, and he would have been just as "important".

 

But he didn't, and therein lies a major flaw in this approach. He didn't, and in fact, he performed excellently. What he may have done is not relevant, whereas what he actually did is very relevant.

 

How is "what he actually did" relevant? His team loses, either way.

[gus_dog]

[Fair enough. And I won't dispute that the metrics that you're using will tell us MOST of the story. I'm just not sure that they tell us everything, especially when a team is 13-15 when Clemens starts, as opposed to 22-4 when Carpenter starts. I don't value "wins" much, but that's just too much of a difference to ignore. Unfortunately, Clemens' "value" decreases if his team is unable to win, with or without him. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I'm sure we've been down that road more than once.

 

Like I said, your metrics tell "most" of the story.

 

I just don't fault a pitcher because his team is shut-out or only scores one run on a day he pitches. A pitcher's job in the "win" equation is to give up as few runs as he can over as many innings as he can. He has little, since he bats I won't say no, control over how many runs his team scores.

 

Clemens value decreases none if his team is unable to win; his team just failed to take advantage of the value he brings.

 

 

I quantify "value" with "importance". How "important" is it that he only gives up 1 run, if his team isn't going to score? He may as well have give up 6, and he would have been just as "important".

 

But he didn't, and therein lies a major flaw in this approach. He didn't, and in fact, he performed excellently. What he may have done is not relevant, whereas what he actually did is very relevant.

 

How is "what he actually did" relevant? His team loses, either way.

 

The team loses. He kept his team in the game, which is VERY different than giving up 6.

[indifferent]

I thought there were some good points added here for both sides (and surprisingly non-homeresque)

 

http://forums.stltoday.com/viewtopic.php?t=286388

[K-Town]

The team loses. He kept his team in the game, which is VERY different than giving up 6.

 

We've covered this over and over again.

 

Bruce Springsteen would have gotten the exact same results (a loss), if he had pitched that day. In the grand scheme of things, do you think that anybody is going to care in September whether the Astros lost that game 1-0, or 13-0?

 

Therefore, Springsteen would have been just as valuable as Clemens that day, if he had been pitching. Unfortunately, Springsteen never got the chance.

 

I know, the VORP doesn't think so.

[wekse]

what the hell are you talking about?

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

I thought there were some good points added here for both sides (and surprisingly non-homeresque)

 

http://forums.stltoday.com/viewtopic.php?t=286388

 

Yeah, I read through that. Good points for both sides. They seem to downplay the zero run support Clemens got 8 times though. And there are also some that think that Carp's ERA is stellar as Clemens'. But that is to be expected on a Cards messageboard. If one of the Cubs were in the race, I'm sure there'd be a ton of bias here out of select posters too.

 

The innings pitched thing brought up is a good point. They both are going to have over 200 innings, so really it's closer to a non issue at that point. But still, valid points on both sides there. And what's even more impressive is that it's a thread on Cards Talk, and there is not one post bashing the Cubs. :wink:

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

The team loses. He kept his team in the game, which is VERY different than giving up 6.

 

We've covered this over and over again.

 

Bruce Springsteen would have gotten the exact same results (a loss), if he had pitched that day. In the grand scheme of things, do you think that anybody is going to care in September whether the Astros lost that game 1-0, or 13-0?

 

Therefore, Springsteen would have been just as valuable as Clemens that day, if he had been pitching. Unfortunately, Springsteen never got the chance.

 

I know, the VORP doesn't think so.

 

Wow, you're really reaching now. Clemens performance isn't less valuable because his team can't score. His TEAM'S performance is what is lacking, not his.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The team loses. He kept his team in the game, which is VERY different than giving up 6.

 

We've covered this over and over again.

 

Bruce Springsteen would have gotten the exact same results (a loss), if he had pitched that day. In the grand scheme of things, do you think that anybody is going to care in September whether the Astros lost that game 1-0, or 13-0?

 

Therefore, Springsteen would have been just as valuable as Clemens that day, if he had been pitching. Unfortunately, Springsteen never got the chance.

 

I know, the VORP doesn't think so.

 

That goes both ways. Carpenter could've given up more runs in many of his starts and still gotten the win, so does it matter if it was him or Marquis or Ankiel pitching?

[K-Town]

what the hell are you talking about?

 

I'm talking about ....um........ Bruce Springsteen and Roger Clemens.

 

Did I spell it wrong?

 

:roll:

[K-Town]

The team loses. He kept his team in the game, which is VERY different than giving up 6.

 

We've covered this over and over again.

 

Bruce Springsteen would have gotten the exact same results (a loss), if he had pitched that day. In the grand scheme of things, do you think that anybody is going to care in September whether the Astros lost that game 1-0, or 13-0?

 

Therefore, Springsteen would have been just as valuable as Clemens that day, if he had been pitching. Unfortunately, Springsteen never got the chance.

 

I know, the VORP doesn't think so.

 

Wow, you're really reaching now. Clemens performance isn't less valuable because his team can't score. His TEAM'S performance is what is lacking, not his.

 

And since his team is lacking, I contend that he's less valuable. I know you disagree. So be it.

 

It's like having a cassette player in your car (not much value in that). If you have 100 CD's, they're pretty valuable on the surface, but pretty worthless, in the context of only having a cassette player to put them in.

 

I'd rather have 10 cassettes, in that context.

[K-Town]

The team loses. He kept his team in the game, which is VERY different than giving up 6.

 

We've covered this over and over again.

 

Bruce Springsteen would have gotten the exact same results (a loss), if he had pitched that day. In the grand scheme of things, do you think that anybody is going to care in September whether the Astros lost that game 1-0, or 13-0?

 

Therefore, Springsteen would have been just as valuable as Clemens that day, if he had been pitching. Unfortunately, Springsteen never got the chance.

 

I know, the VORP doesn't think so.

 

That goes both ways. Carpenter could've given up more runs in many of his starts and still gotten the win, so does it matter if it was him or Marquis or Ankiel pitching?

 

And the same is true for Clemens, in his wins. So that cancels out.

[wekse]

what the hell are you talking about?

 

I'm talking about ....um........ Bruce Springsteen and Roger Clemens.

 

Did I spell it wrong?

 

:roll:

 

what does springsteen have to do with the cy young race? and the rolling eyes emoticon is really cute imo.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

And since his team is lacking, I contend that he's less valuable. I know you disagree. So be it.

 

It's like having a cassette player in your car (not much value in that). If you have 100 CD's, they're pretty valuable on the surface, but pretty worthless, in the context of only having a cassette player to put them in.

 

I'd rather have 10 cassettes, in that context.

 

So once again, we get back to you wanting to base the Cy Young and a pitcher's value on his TEAM... which is the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The team loses. He kept his team in the game, which is VERY different than giving up 6.

 

We've covered this over and over again.

 

Bruce Springsteen would have gotten the exact same results (a loss), if he had pitched that day. In the grand scheme of things, do you think that anybody is going to care in September whether the Astros lost that game 1-0, or 13-0?

 

Therefore, Springsteen would have been just as valuable as Clemens that day, if he had been pitching. Unfortunately, Springsteen never got the chance.

 

I know, the VORP doesn't think so.

 

That goes both ways. Carpenter could've given up more runs in many of his starts and still gotten the win, so does it matter if it was him or Marquis or Ankiel pitching?

 

And the same is true for Clemens, in his wins. So that cancels out.

 

So because Clemens's team puts him in the former situation much more than Carpenter's team does, that means we penalize Clemens? Okay. First, the situations, then the team based nonsense. Can't say that I didn't see it coming.

[K-Town]

And since his team is lacking, I contend that he's less valuable. I know you disagree. So be it.

 

It's like having a cassette player in your car (not much value in that). If you have 100 CD's, they're pretty valuable on the surface, but pretty worthless, in the context of only having a cassette player to put them in.

 

I'd rather have 10 cassettes, in that context.

 

So once again, we get back to you wanting to base the Cy Young and a pitcher's value on his TEAM... which is the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

 

I know, which is why I said "I know you disagree. So be it".

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

Well, if that's true, than Albert Pujols deserves the Cy Young more than Chris Carpenter. Since he's the one that actually won the games for him.

[gus_dog]

The team loses. He kept his team in the game, which is VERY different than giving up 6.

 

We've covered this over and over again.

 

Bruce Springsteen would have gotten the exact same results (a loss), if he had pitched that day. In the grand scheme of things, do you think that anybody is going to care in September whether the Astros lost that game 1-0, or 13-0?

 

Therefore, Springsteen would have been just as valuable as Clemens that day, if he had been pitching. Unfortunately, Springsteen never got the chance.

 

I know, the VORP doesn't think so.

 

Wow, you're really reaching now. Clemens performance isn't less valuable because his team can't score. His TEAM'S performance is what is lacking, not his.

 

And since his team is lacking, I contend that he's less valuable. I know you disagree. So be it.

 

It's like having a cassette player in your car (not much value in that). If you have 100 CD's, they're pretty valuable on the surface, but pretty worthless, in the context of only having a cassette player to put them in.

 

I'd rather have 10 cassettes, in that context.

 

Yes, but Cy is not a team award, it is an individual award.

 

Your argument here does not hold water.

 

Essentially, you think Carpenter deserves it because he played for a better team. Really, that's it in a nutshell. (and because he's a Redbird :wink: )

 

In the final analysis, I think the voters will fall on your side. That is somwhat flawed. Given, no more or less flawed than how it was done in prior years, but flawed nonetheless.

[K-Town]

The team loses. He kept his team in the game, which is VERY different than giving up 6.

 

We've covered this over and over again.

 

Bruce Springsteen would have gotten the exact same results (a loss), if he had pitched that day. In the grand scheme of things, do you think that anybody is going to care in September whether the Astros lost that game 1-0, or 13-0?

 

Therefore, Springsteen would have been just as valuable as Clemens that day, if he had been pitching. Unfortunately, Springsteen never got the chance.

 

I know, the VORP doesn't think so.

 

That goes both ways. Carpenter could've given up more runs in many of his starts and still gotten the win, so does it matter if it was him or Marquis or Ankiel pitching?

 

And the same is true for Clemens, in his wins. So that cancels out.

 

So because Clemens's team puts him in the former situation much more than Carpenter's team does, that means we penalize Clemens? Okay. First, the situations, then the team based nonsense. Can't say that I didn't see it coming.

 

I'm not penalizing anybody. His team is penalizing him.