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

[indifferent]

I know where everyone stands, but I posted this on another board re: Willis.

 

I've seen many sportswriters bring up Willis as a way of strengthening Clemens case. "Well why not Willis, his record is almost as good as Carp's and his ERA is within shouting distance". How is Willis even a factor?

 

The reason there's so much controversy between Carp and Clemens is because it's like apples and oranges comparing the two. They are both leading in different categories. Willis is clearly second in every category to Carp

 

Willis Carp

W/L 20-8 20-4

ERA .252 .228

WHIP 1.12 .98

BAA .243 .216

IP 200 213

Ks 137 191

BBs 46 44

 

I find it a little backhanded the way the Clemens supporters bring up Willis every chance they get. The insinuation is, "well, if you're going to look at wins, look at Willis too". BS

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

I know where everyone stands, but I posted this on another board re: Willis.

 

I've seen many sportswriters bring up Willis as a way of strengthening Clemens case. "Well why not Willis, his record is almost as good as Carp's and his ERA is within shouting distance". How is Willis even a factor?

 

The reason there's so much controversy between Carp and Clemens is because it's like apples and oranges comparing the two. They are both leading in different categories. Willis is clearly second in every category to Carp

 

Willis Carp

W/L 20-8 20-4

ERA .252 .228

WHIP 1.12 .98

BAA .243 .216

IP 200 213

Ks 137 191

BBs 46 44

 

I find it a little backhanded the way the Clemens supporters bring up Willis every chance they get. The insinuation is, "well, if you're going to look at wins, look at Willis too". BS

 

I think he should be considered for the award based on his stats. But the fact that he's behind Clemens and Carp in almost everything puts him behind them at the moment. He is within striking distance though.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I know where everyone stands, but I posted this on another board re: Willis.

 

I've seen many sportswriters bring up Willis as a way of strengthening Clemens case. "Well why not Willis, his record is almost as good as Carp's and his ERA is within shouting distance". How is Willis even a factor?

 

The reason there's so much controversy between Carp and Clemens is because it's like apples and oranges comparing the two. They are both leading in different categories. Willis is clearly second in every category to Carp

 

Willis Carp

W/L 20-8 20-4

ERA .252 .228

WHIP 1.12 .98

BAA .243 .216

IP 200 213

Ks 137 191

BBs 46 44

 

I find it a little backhanded the way the Clemens supporters bring up Willis every chance they get. The insinuation is, "well, if you're going to look at wins, look at Willis too". BS

 

I think he should be considered for the award based on his stats. But the fact that he's behind Clemens and Carp in almost everything puts him behind them at the moment. He is within striking distance though.

 

I agree here. If I were ranking them, it would be 1. Clemens, 2. Carpenter, 3. Willis. Willis is close enough to put himself in there, but it's going to take some great performances and probably at least one bad performance out of Clemens and Carpenter.

[indifferent]

I know where everyone stands, but I posted this on another board re: Willis.

 

I've seen many sportswriters bring up Willis as a way of strengthening Clemens case. "Well why not Willis, his record is almost as good as Carp's and his ERA is within shouting distance". How is Willis even a factor?

 

The reason there's so much controversy between Carp and Clemens is because it's like apples and oranges comparing the two. They are both leading in different categories. Willis is clearly second in every category to Carp

 

Willis Carp

W/L 20-8 20-4

ERA .252 .228

WHIP 1.12 .98

BAA .243 .216

IP 200 213

Ks 137 191

BBs 46 44

 

I find it a little backhanded the way the Clemens supporters bring up Willis every chance they get. The insinuation is, "well, if you're going to look at wins, look at Willis too". BS

 

I think he should be considered for the award based on his stats. But the fact that he's behind Clemens and Carp in almost everything puts him behind them at the moment. He is within striking distance though.

 

I agree here. If I were ranking them, it would be 1. Clemens, 2. Carpenter, 3. Willis. Willis is close enough to put himself in there, but it's going to take some great performances and probably at least one bad performance out of Clemens and Carpenter.

 

What a reach considering Willis is 2nd to Carp in every category!

 

While I still remain undecided, they ought to just give the Cy to the lowest ERA and be done with it. Why the voting process?

[imb]

From Jayson Stark's column today on espn.com

 

• It has been 20 years since any pitcher finished a non-strike season with an ERA as low as Clemens' 1.57 (since Dwight Gooden put up a 1.53 ERA in 1985).

 

• And even if we start feeling charitable and throw in the 1994 strike year, Clemens, Gooden and Greg Maddux (1.56 in '94) still would have the only sub-1.60 ERAs by any pitchers since the mound was raised in 1969. And if Clemens shrinks his ERA by just a few micro-ticks (to 1.52 or lower), he could end up with the best ERA by any pitcher since Bob Gibson's "legendary" 1.12 in 1968.

 

• Then there's that road ERA (0.52). In 1968, Gibson gave up 13 earned runs in 16 road starts, for an ERA of 0.81 -- the lowest by any pitcher in the 45-season expansion era. Clemens wouldn't just break that record if his road ERA stays this low. He would have an ERA less than half of the next-best ERA by anyone else in that era. (Second-best behind Gibson: Maddux, at 1.12 in 1995.)

 

• But a better way to measure Clemens is to compare him with all those other pitchers out there right now. The average NL pitcher, remember, has an ERA of 4.23. So Clemens' ERA is 2.66 lower than his league's. And if we don't count strike seasons, the only pitcher in the history of baseball who ever outpitched his league by that big a margin was the prime-time Pedro Martinez (in both 1999 and 2000).

 

So if Rodrigo Lopez (with a 4.97 ERA) and Mike Maroth (4.82) have more wins than Roger Clemens, shouldn't it be clear to anyone paying attention that "wins" might be the most overrated individual stat in baseball? Come on. Admit it already.

 

Of course, he also mentions that Carp is the favorite.

[wolf stansson]

I'm aware that it's a Cards fan. I still think it's in poor taste to talk about "stabbing" people.

I think it's in poor taste to take message board comments personally.

 

Do you post on any Cards boards? What is your SN? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and respect you, but I have only this thread to go on.

[indifferent]

From Jayson Stark's column today on espn.com

 

Of course, he also mentions that Carp is the favorite.

 

Imagine that, without anyone even stumping for him!

[K-Town]

From Jayson Stark's column today on espn.com

 

• It has been 20 years since any pitcher finished a non-strike season with an ERA as low as Clemens' 1.57 (since Dwight Gooden put up a 1.53 ERA in 1985).

 

• And even if we start feeling charitable and throw in the 1994 strike year, Clemens, Gooden and Greg Maddux (1.56 in '94) still would have the only sub-1.60 ERAs by any pitchers since the mound was raised in 1969. And if Clemens shrinks his ERA by just a few micro-ticks (to 1.52 or lower), he could end up with the best ERA by any pitcher since Bob Gibson's "legendary" 1.12 in 1968.

 

• Then there's that road ERA (0.52). In 1968, Gibson gave up 13 earned runs in 16 road starts, for an ERA of 0.81 -- the lowest by any pitcher in the 45-season expansion era. Clemens wouldn't just break that record if his road ERA stays this low. He would have an ERA less than half of the next-best ERA by anyone else in that era. (Second-best behind Gibson: Maddux, at 1.12 in 1995.)

 

• But a better way to measure Clemens is to compare him with all those other pitchers out there right now. The average NL pitcher, remember, has an ERA of 4.23. So Clemens' ERA is 2.66 lower than his league's. And if we don't count strike seasons, the only pitcher in the history of baseball who ever outpitched his league by that big a margin was the prime-time Pedro Martinez (in both 1999 and 2000).

 

So if Rodrigo Lopez (with a 4.97 ERA) and Mike Maroth (4.82) have more wins than Roger Clemens, shouldn't it be clear to anyone paying attention that "wins" might be the most overrated individual stat in baseball? Come on. Admit it already.

 

Of course, he also mentions that Carp is the favorite.

 

"Road ERA". Now THERE'S something to consider! :roll:

 

Why is he comparing Clemens to the "average NL pitcher"? Carpenter is having one of the best years by a NL pitcher in YEARS! Compare Clemens to Carpenter, not the "average NL pitcher".

 

 

 

What the heck do Rodrigo Lopez and Mike Maroth have to do with anything? If he's randomly comparing "wins" to try to discredit Carpenter, then I'll "randomly" pick out Todd Jones and Chad Cordero, and make a case that Clemens' ERA is garbage. That's ludicrous.

 

 

I was hoping not to get into this today, but I'm here. If Clemens tried to do what Carpenter did, he'd get smoked. Clemens' OPS-against after the 6th inning is .681. Clemens would probably chasing Dontrelle Willis for 2nd place in the Cy Young voting, if he tried to do what Carpenter does.

[K-Town]

I'm aware that it's a Cards fan. I still think it's in poor taste to talk about "stabbing" people.

I think it's in poor taste to take message board comments personally.

 

Do you post on any Cards boards? What is your SN? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and respect you, but I have only this thread to go on.

 

I've posted on lots of Cardinal boards. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, and I don't know what you mean by "SN". I've also posted in other threads on this board, if you want to check those out.

 

I normally don't take message board comments personally. But to say that I'm going to "stab" somebody is a little over the top for me. Heck, others on this board got offended when I said that Prior usually doesn't pitch deep into games. And yet talking about me STABBING somebody isn't supposed to offend me?

[wekse]

the comparisons of Mike Maroth and Rodrigo Lopez are there to show you that you can be a mediocre pitcher and still pick up wins if your team scores for you.....seems pretty simple to figure out to me.

[1908]

I don't know what you mean by "SN" ...

Screen Name.

[K-Town]

the comparisons of Mike Maroth and Rodrigo Lopez are there to show you that you can be a mediocre pitcher and still pick up wins if your team scores for you.....seems pretty simple to figure out to me.

 

I know what it means.

 

And I say that it's "easy" to have an ERA below 2 (see Todd Jones and Chad Cordero). Is that a ridiculous argument? Of course it is, but it's ridiculous to bring Maroth and Lopez into it, also.

 

Nobody is saying "Carpenter should win the Cy Young Award because he wins alot of games". Who has said that? Cardinal fans saw enough of Garrett Stephenson to understand that wins aren't everything. When Stephenson won 16 games, Cardinal fans still knew he was horrible.

 

Carpenter is no Garrett Stephenson. He's also no Mike Maroth or Rodrigo Lopez.

[K-Town]

I don't know what you mean by "SN" ...

Screen Name.

 

OK.

 

I usually go by Socnorb11.

 

Feel free to do some research, if it makes you feel better. I'm not sure what the point is, though.

[wekse]

so it's now easy to have an era below 2 because there are two players who haven't even logged 70 ip and are having career years that have an era that low?

[K-Town]

so it's now easy to have an era below 2 because there are two players who haven't even logged 70 ip and are having career years that have an era that low?

 

Nope. That argument is ridiculous. That's what I said.

 

The Maroth and Lopez arguments are just as ridiculous.

[indifferent]

K-Town, I agree with you here. ESPN does a lot of spotlight "fluff" pieces on players which is fine, but not in the midst of a CY Young/MVP race. If they're going to do that, they need to have their other columnists who are voting for Carp do a piece on him which presents a completely one sided perspective (he mentioned as an aside the categories where Carp is ahead of Clemens).

 

Sort of like the way they preview divisions. The next day should be Willis and they should do an MVP piece on Lee, Pujols, and Cabrera, not just Jones.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

It shouldn't surprise anyone that Stark wrote a piece in favor of Clemens. The two baseball writers for ESPN that are the most sabermetric are Stark and Neyer. The sabermetric stats point clearly to Clemens as the best pitcher in the NL this year. It doesn't surprise me that Stark wrote what he wrote and I find it to be a nice article.

 

What he is trying to accomplish with that article is to show what a rare feat Clemens has accomplished with his ERA this season. His comparing Clemens ERA to league average is to show how phenomenal it really is. While Gibson may have had a 1.12 ERA in 1968, that's not nearly as impressive as Clemens ERA this season because of the difference to league average.

 

I think his mentioning those other pitchers is to draw out the points that wins are an over rated stat and should not be used in the equation. You may not agree with Stark, but those pitchers are illustrative of that point.

 

If you take wins out of the equation, the Cy clearly belongs to Clemens. I'm quite aware that many aren't willing to do that, but that is what it boils down to.

[indifferent]

It shouldn't surprise anyone that Stark wrote a piece in favor of Clemens. The two baseball writers for ESPN that are the most sabermetric are Stark and Neyer. The sabermetric stats point clearly to Clemens as the best pitcher in the NL this year. It doesn't surprise me that Stark wrote what he wrote and I find it to be a nice article.

 

What he is trying to accomplish with that article is to show what a rare feat Clemens has accomplished with his ERA this season. His comparing Clemens ERA to league average is to show how phenomenal it really is. While Gibson may have had a 1.12 ERA in 1968, that's not nearly as impressive as Clemens ERA this season because of the difference to league average.

 

I think his mentioning those other pitchers is to draw out the points that wins are an over rated stat and should not be used in the equation. You may not agree with Stark, but those pitchers are illustrative of that point.

 

If you take wins out of the equation, the Cy clearly belongs to Clemens. I'm quite aware that many aren't willing to do that, but that is what it boils down to.

 

If he's so sabermetric, why did he write a piece promoting Jones for MVP?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

so it's now easy to have an era below 2 because there are two players who haven't even logged 70 ip and are having career years that have an era that low?

 

Nope. That argument is ridiculous. That's what I said.

 

The Maroth and Lopez arguments are just as ridiculous.

 

Stark wasn't using that comparison as an argument for Clemens winning the Cy, it was putting his season in historical perspective.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

It shouldn't surprise anyone that Stark wrote a piece in favor of Clemens. The two baseball writers for ESPN that are the most sabermetric are Stark and Neyer. The sabermetric stats point clearly to Clemens as the best pitcher in the NL this year. It doesn't surprise me that Stark wrote what he wrote and I find it to be a nice article.

 

What he is trying to accomplish with that article is to show what a rare feat Clemens has accomplished with his ERA this season. His comparing Clemens ERA to league average is to show how phenomenal it really is. While Gibson may have had a 1.12 ERA in 1968, that's not nearly as impressive as Clemens ERA this season because of the difference to league average.

 

I think his mentioning those other pitchers is to draw out the points that wins are an over rated stat and should not be used in the equation. You may not agree with Stark, but those pitchers are illustrative of that point.

 

If you take wins out of the equation, the Cy clearly belongs to Clemens. I'm quite aware that many aren't willing to do that, but that is what it boils down to.

 

If he's so sabermetric, why did he write a piece promoting Jones for MVP?

 

I suggest you email him and ask him.

[wolf stansson]

I usually go by Socnorb11.

 

Feel free to do some research, if it makes you feel better. I'm not sure what the point is, though.

I don't plan on researching, I was just curious if you are anyone I know.

[indifferent]

It shouldn't surprise anyone that Stark wrote a piece in favor of Clemens. The two baseball writers for ESPN that are the most sabermetric are Stark and Neyer. The sabermetric stats point clearly to Clemens as the best pitcher in the NL this year. It doesn't surprise me that Stark wrote what he wrote and I find it to be a nice article.

 

What he is trying to accomplish with that article is to show what a rare feat Clemens has accomplished with his ERA this season. His comparing Clemens ERA to league average is to show how phenomenal it really is. While Gibson may have had a 1.12 ERA in 1968, that's not nearly as impressive as Clemens ERA this season because of the difference to league average.

 

I think his mentioning those other pitchers is to draw out the points that wins are an over rated stat and should not be used in the equation. You may not agree with Stark, but those pitchers are illustrative of that point.

 

If you take wins out of the equation, the Cy clearly belongs to Clemens. I'm quite aware that many aren't willing to do that, but that is what it boils down to.

 

If he's so sabermetric, why did he write a piece promoting Jones for MVP?

 

I suggest you email him and ask him.

 

Good idea...you don't by chance have his e-mail in your contacts, do you? :)

[1908]

It shouldn't surprise anyone that Stark wrote a piece in favor of Clemens. The two baseball writers for ESPN that are the most sabermetric are Stark and Neyer. The sabermetric stats point clearly to Clemens as the best pitcher in the NL this year. It doesn't surprise me that Stark wrote what he wrote and I find it to be a nice article.

 

What he is trying to accomplish with that article is to show what a rare feat Clemens has accomplished with his ERA this season. His comparing Clemens ERA to league average is to show how phenomenal it really is. While Gibson may have had a 1.12 ERA in 1968, that's not nearly as impressive as Clemens ERA this season because of the difference to league average.

 

I think his mentioning those other pitchers is to draw out the points that wins are an over rated stat and should not be used in the equation. You may not agree with Stark, but those pitchers are illustrative of that point.

 

If you take wins out of the equation, the Cy clearly belongs to Clemens. I'm quite aware that many aren't willing to do that, but that is what it boils down to.

 

If he's so sabermetric, why did he write a piece promoting Jones for MVP?

 

I suggest you email him and ask him.

I wouldn't describe Stark as a sabermetrician. He might use some of the stats once in a while, but he's not an advocate of the approach like Neyer.

[indifferent]

At the risk of banging the drum too much, I found this exchange compelling on the ESPN boards:

 

Re: Should Carpenter's Cy Young come with an asterisk?

yankinmass Posted: Sep 08, 2005 02:55 PM Quote

Posts: 77

in the last 60 days

Now, looking solely at things the pitcher controls, the numbers were:

 

IP: Johnson 245.2, Clemens 214.1

ERA: Johnson 2.60, Clemens 2.98

SO: Johnson 290, Clemens 218

BAA: Johnson .197, Clemens .217

WHIP: Johnson 0.90, Clemens 1.16

 

When I hear Clemens fans demand that he hand over his 2004 NL Cy Young to Randy Johnson, then their impassioned arguments about W/L not mattering might hold water.

 

 

Here's how I look at CYA. 3 things matter:

 

1. Amount of work done - IP

2. ERA

3. W/L record

 

I value the first 2 a bit more than the others because they are more or less completely under the pitcher's control. The last factor is much less under his control.

 

I throw things like SO, WHIP, etc. out the window as they are a sub-metric of ERA in my opinion. A guy who gives up a hit and a walk and gets out of a jam unscathed has done as good a job as a guy that strikes out the side. The only difference is the number of grey hairs on the manager's head.

 

Re: Should Carpenter's Cy Young come with an asterisk?

jjennings72 Posted: Sep 08, 2005 03:13 PM Quote

Posts: 20

in the last 60 days

 

 

Now, looking solely at things the pitcher controls, the numbers were:

 

IP: Johnson 245.2, Clemens 214.1

ERA: Johnson 2.60, Clemens 2.98

SO: Johnson 290, Clemens 218

BAA: Johnson .197, Clemens .217

WHIP: Johnson 0.90, Clemens 1.16

 

When I hear Clemens fans demand that he hand over his 2004 NL Cy Young to Randy Johnson, then their impassioned arguments about W/L not mattering might hold water.

 

Here's how I look at CYA. 3 things matter:

 

1. Amount of work done - IP

2. ERA

3. W/L record

 

I value the first 2 a bit more than the others because they are more or less completely under the pitcher's control. The last factor is much less under his control.

 

I throw things like SO, WHIP, etc. out the window as they are a sub-metric of ERA in my opinion. A guy who gives up a hit and a walk and gets out of a jam unscathed has done as good a job as a guy that strikes out the side. The only difference is the number of grey hairs on the manager's head.

 

Excellent post, yim.

 

The ironic thing is it's the same guy benefitting from both arguments!

 

While I agree ERA is the most important stat to look at, you still look at the whole picture. 1st in wins, 1st in IP, and 2nd IP tell me it's Carpenter. And Carpenter's ERA is nothing to sneeze at. It's similar to voting for the MVP, a candidate in the top 1-3 in every category is likely to win.

 

On a side note to all of those who choose to embrace sabermetrics this year and disdain wins, why now? We knew about all of these things last year and Clemens still won with a higher ERA and a closer W-L differential. Be consistent please.

[UK1679666180]

I don't know what you mean by "SN" ...

Screen Name.

 

OK.

 

I usually go by Socnorb11.

 

Feel free to do some research, if it makes you feel better. I'm not sure what the point is, though.

 

Welcome aboard dyslexic broncos...