MADDUX VESTING PARTY!!!

[Careless]

I do get what you're saying and I think it's ridiculous. I'm not going to attribute any value to a pitcher for something as out of their control as a handful of wins.

 

Why do you think certain pitchers get more run support than others on the same team? As long as my team scores more than the other team, I'm happy...

Yeah, it's too bad now that Clemens is old he sucks at getting his team to score lots of runs. that's what your argument boils down to, and it's just absurd. I can't believe anyone would want to argue your side of things

edit: I can't believe anyone other than joe morgan would want to argue your side of things

[ConstableRabbit]

I do get what you're saying and I think it's ridiculous. I'm not going to attribute any value to a pitcher for something as out of their control as a handful of wins.

 

Why do you think certain pitchers get more run support than others on the same team? As long as my team scores more than the other team, I'm happy...

Yeah, it's too bad now that Clemens is old he sucks at getting his team to score lots of runs. that's what your argument boils down to, and it's just absurd. I can't believe anyone would want to argue your side of things

edit: I can't believe anyone other than joe morgan would want to argue your side of things

 

I think you're looking at my argument the wrong way.

 

Joe Morgan thinks that the pitcher with the most wins should be the Cy Young winner because he is the best pitcher.

 

I think the Cy Young should go to the pitcher who has done everything in his power to win games, meaning era, whip, baa, etc. because that is the individual who has literally "pitched" the best. (Clemens has pitched the best this season).

 

That being said, a pitcher who cannot win is not as valuable to his team in a particular contained season than one who can, regardless of other stats. I guess I don't have any other way of phrasing this... I've said it several times. Perhaps "valuable" isnt the correct word to be using, because people tend to associate value with achievement. Trust me, happening to get more run support than a teammate doesn't make your personal accomplishments any greater, but for certain players, it does occur. It's almost certainly luck, but it happens, and the bottom line is, the team wins more often when the guys with the greatest differential between runs scored and runs allowed are pitching. If I had to take my pick for one season, I would take a mediocre pitcher who was incredibly lucky over an excellent pitcher who was unlucky if 10 more wins for my team was the bottom line.

 

That being said... when trying to build a team, do you look for a pitcher like, say, Russ Ortiz, to anchor your rotation because he won 20+ with a higher era? No. You have no idea how the offense will support him the next year. Maybe he had a lucky season. Maybe the team felt more confident when he was pitching.. you just don't know and for that reason you need to look for guys who allow the least runs per game. I'm just trying to say that when the season is said and done, and you're looking back on it (as we are with Maddux), can you honestly say (as a team) you were better off with a pitcher who has a low era and less wins, or one with a higher era and almost double the wins?

 

So please don't lump Joe and I together. Other than a taste for Ron of Japan and fine silk suits, we don't have much in common.

 

With that note, I think I'm going to stop trying to get this point across. I don't know if it is a lack of eloquence or what, but I continue to get misinterpreted (e.g. 'Yeah, like way to credit a picher for getting run support') and it's not worth it for me to continue to try rewording my original post. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. :D

[Careless]

The problem here is that you think that a pitcher who gets screwed with poor run support is a pitcher who "cannot win". you are wrong. That is all that needs to be said.

[Derwood]

I do get what you're saying and I think it's ridiculous. I'm not going to attribute any value to a pitcher for something as out of their control as a handful of wins.

 

Why do you think certain pitchers get more run support than others on the same team? As long as my team scores more than the other team, I'm happy...

Yeah, it's too bad now that Clemens is old he sucks at getting his team to score lots of runs. that's what your argument boils down to, and it's just absurd. I can't believe anyone would want to argue your side of things

edit: I can't believe anyone other than joe morgan would want to argue your side of things

 

I think you're looking at my argument the wrong way.

 

Joe Morgan thinks that the pitcher with the most wins should be the Cy Young winner because he is the best pitcher.

 

I think the Cy Young should go to the pitcher who has done everything in his power to win games, meaning era, whip, baa, etc. because that is the individual who has literally "pitched" the best. (Clemens has pitched the best this season).

 

That being said, a pitcher who cannot win is not as valuable to his team in a particular contained season than one who can, regardless of other stats. I guess I don't have any other way of phrasing this... I've said it several times. Perhaps "valuable" isnt the correct word to be using, because people tend to associate value with achievement. Trust me, happening to get more run support than a teammate doesn't make your personal accomplishments any greater, but for certain players, it does occur. It's almost certainly luck, but it happens, and the bottom line is, the team wins more often when the guys with the greatest differential between runs scored and runs allowed are pitching. If I had to take my pick for one season, I would take a mediocre pitcher who was incredibly lucky over an excellent pitcher who was unlucky if 10 more wins for my team was the bottom line.

 

That being said... when trying to build a team, do you look for a pitcher like, say, Russ Ortiz, to anchor your rotation because he won 20+ with a higher era? No. You have no idea how the offense will support him the next year. Maybe he had a lucky season. Maybe the team felt more confident when he was pitching.. you just don't know and for that reason you need to look for guys who allow the least runs per game. I'm just trying to say that when the season is said and done, and you're looking back on it (as we are with Maddux), can you honestly say (as a team) you were better off with a pitcher who has a low era and less wins, or one with a higher era and almost double the wins?

 

So please don't lump Joe and I together. Other than a taste for Ron of Japan and fine silk suits, we don't have much in common.

 

With that note, I think I'm going to stop trying to get this point across. I don't know if it is a lack of eloquence or what, but I continue to get misinterpreted (e.g. 'Yeah, like way to credit a picher for getting run support') and it's not worth it for me to continue to try rewording my original post. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. :D

 

Can I assume, then, that given a vote, you would choose Carpenter to win the CY over Clemens because Clemens just "can't win" this year?

[ConstableRabbit]

Joe Morgan thinks that the pitcher with the most wins should be the Cy Young winner because he is the best pitcher.

 

I think the Cy Young should go to the pitcher who has done everything in his power to win games, meaning era, whip, baa, etc. because that is the individual who has literally "pitched" the best. (Clemens has pitched the best this season).

 

Can I assume, then, that given a vote, you would choose Carpenter to win the CY over Clemens because Clemens just "can't win" this year?

[nilodnayr]

Why do you think certain pitchers get more run support than others on the same team? As long as my team scores more than the other team, I'm happy...

 

I'm happy, too, but it's by no virtue of the pitcher that the offense scored runs.

 

Oh, I wasn't crediting the pitcher for that. I was just saying that because for whatever reason the team wins more when he pitches, he becomes more valuable to the team.

 

I'm not trying to equate "most valuable to the team" with "best pitcher on the team", or "best pitching performance".

 

A pitcher is only more valuable to his team if he actually does something to be more valuable. Such as stay in the game longer or contribute offensively, attributes that are not reflected in ERA. I dont know how you can place value on an irrelevent stat that he does not have significant control over.

[Peoriaman]

I'd vote Carpenter over Clemons.

[Garwilly]

I'd vote Carpenter over Clemons.

 

Post first, then drink.

 

Jk 8)

[Derwood]

Okay, another comparison for discussion:

 

Who has been a better pitcher this year?

 

PITCHER A:

 

9-12, 3.60 ERA, 1.23 WHIP, 2.98 K/BB, 7.1 K/9, .253 OBA

 

or

 

PITCHER B:

 

11-5, 3.64 ERA, 1.16 WHIP, 3.34 K/BB, 9.9 K/9, .221 OBA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pitcher A is Aaron Harang, while Pitcher B is Mark Prior. Prior's OBA and WHIP are a bit better, but is Harang really that much worse just because "he can't win?" I think wins are very circumstancial

Edited September 12, 2005 by Derwood

[burnt out cubbie fan]

Okay, another comparison for discussion:

 

Who has been a better pitcher this year?

 

PITCHER A:

 

9-12, 3.60 ERA, 1.23 WHIP, 3/1 K/BB, 7.1 K/9, .253 OBA

 

or

 

PITCHER B:

 

12-11, 4.28 ERA, 1.28 WHIP, 3.63 K/BB, 5.5 K/9, .276 OBA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, these are our two starters today. Pitcher A is Aaron Harang, while Pitcher B is Maddux. Is Harang "worse" than Maddux because "he just doesn't win?"

No, but then again I didn't even look at the W/L total until I scrolled down and saw you mentioned it.

[Derwood]

Okay, another comparison for discussion:

 

Who has been a better pitcher this year?

 

PITCHER A:

 

9-12, 3.60 ERA, 1.23 WHIP, 3/1 K/BB, 7.1 K/9, .253 OBA

 

or

 

PITCHER B:

 

12-11, 4.28 ERA, 1.28 WHIP, 3.63 K/BB, 5.5 K/9, .276 OBA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, these are our two starters today. Pitcher A is Aaron Harang, while Pitcher B is Maddux. Is Harang "worse" than Maddux because "he just doesn't win?"

No, but then again I didn't even look at the W/L total until I scrolled down and saw you mentioned it.

 

I edited the two pitchers. You got in before I could change it :oops:

[CubDad4Ever]

Wins are important, some guy with a 7 plus era and 20 wins is highly unlikely. Maddux however is a guy highly dependent on balls in play as he has gotten older. His great low walk ratio allows him to still be and excellent pitcher. He gives up more home runs than before because of a slight loss of command and in my opioion is not given the same edge on the corner pitches he and glavine used to recieve . That being said he still amazes me. He takes the ball every start (see wood and prior) . Keeps his team in the game almost every time. His era is also slighty higher because they econmize his innings. so runs against fewer innings pitched will hurt his era more. He has been worth the money in alot of ways. The cubs would have in no way been able to guarntee the production he has brought from younger pitchers. God Bless Murton

[Careless]

Wins are important, some guy with a 7 plus era and 20 wins is highly unlikely. Maddux however is a guy highly dependent on balls in play as he has gotten older. His great low walk ratio allows him to still be and excellent pitcher. He gives up more home runs than before because of a slight loss of command and in my opioion is not given the same edge on the corner pitches he and glavine used to recieve . That being said he still amazes me. He takes the ball every start (see wood and prior) . Keeps his team in the game almost every time. His era is also slighty higher because they econmize his innings. so runs against fewer innings pitched will hurt his era more. He has been worth the money in alot of ways. The cubs would have in no way been able to guarntee the production he has brought from younger pitchers. God Bless Murton

Economize his innings? maddux is 26th in baseball in IP, 18th in the NL. Add 6% to his innings (this start should give him 3-4% more) and he's in the top 10. It's a tightly packed list . No one aside from Weaver (excluding lieber because of home ballpark) has as many innings with a worse ERA. Maddux throws fewer pitches now and makes fewer outs in a game, that's true, but that's a point against him.

He is not still an excellent pitcher. Batters are hitting over .030 higher against him these days (and it's been steadily increasing the past 3 years) They're slugging 0.90 higher than his career average, also up each of the last 3 years. For some reason the OBP column is blank, but an OPSA .111 higher than his career averages (again, rising every year, but in this case up every year since 99, a bad year, and rising for several years before that.) Maddux is declining and has been for a while. He's lost his excellence along the way and he knows it.

 

Anyone ever seen an attempt to calculate what sort of damage maddux's poor ability at keeping runners from stealing hurts him (if it even does, blanco is insanely good at throwing em out)

[SanJoseCubsFan]

Yes but he only goes 7 innings in 11 of his 30 starts. The fact that he is 36th in IP is due to always going a certain amount of innings every game AND MAKING EVERY START. It is amazing he is that high considering he doesn't go deep into games as much as he use to. This does have an effect on ERA. The point is if you only go 6 or so your ERA is going to be worse. Many great pitches don't hold runners on. He makes that up by not walking anyone.

 

 

Wins are important, some guy with a 7 plus era and 20 wins is highly unlikely. Maddux however is a guy highly dependent on balls in play as he has gotten older. His great low walk ratio allows him to still be and excellent pitcher. He gives up more home runs than before because of a slight loss of command and in my opioion is not given the same edge on the corner pitches he and glavine used to recieve . That being said he still amazes me. He takes the ball every start (see wood and prior) . Keeps his team in the game almost every time. His era is also slighty higher because they econmize his innings. so runs against fewer innings pitched will hurt his era more. He has been worth the money in alot of ways. The cubs would have in no way been able to guarntee the production he has brought from younger pitchers. God Bless Murton

Economize his innings? maddux is 26th in baseball in IP, 18th in the NL. Add 6% to his innings (this start should give him 3-4% more) and he's in the top 10. It's a tightly packed list . No one aside from Weaver (excluding lieber because of home ballpark) has as many innings with a worse ERA. Maddux throws fewer pitches now and makes fewer outs in a game, that's true, but that's a point against him.

He is not still an excellent pitcher. Batters are hitting over .030 higher against him these days (and it's been steadily increasing the past 3 years) They're slugging 0.90 higher than his career average, also up each of the last 3 years. For some reason the OBP column is blank, but an OPSA .111 higher than his career averages (again, rising every year, but in this case up every year since 99, a bad year, and rising for several years before that.) Maddux is declining and has been for a while. He's lost his excellence along the way and he knows it.

 

Anyone ever seen an attempt to calculate what sort of damage maddux's poor ability at keeping runners from stealing hurts him (if it even does, blanco is insanely good at throwing em out)

[neely crenshaw]

who on this staff other than z is excellent?

[Careless]

Yes but he only goes 7 innings in 11 of his 30 starts. The fact that he is 36th in IP is due to always going a certain amount of innings every game AND MAKING EVERY START. It is amazing he is that high considering he doesn't go deep into games as much as he use to. This does have an effect on ERA. The point is if you only go 6 or so your ERA is going to be worse. Many great pitches don't hold runners on. He makes that up by not walking anyone.

There's simply no reason going shorter would give you a higher ERA. Many relievers have ERAs under 15. Some even have ERAs under 4! While having 1 bad game will hurt you more if you pitch fewer innings per game, you're less likely to have bad games (fewer disaster innings) and more likely to have runless outtings. Also, after tonight's game I believe he's 16th in IP.

[ConstableRabbit]

Okay, another comparison for discussion:

 

Who has been a better pitcher this year?

 

PITCHER A:

 

9-12, 3.60 ERA, 1.23 WHIP, 2.98 K/BB, 7.1 K/9, .253 OBA

 

or

 

PITCHER B:

 

11-5, 3.64 ERA, 1.16 WHIP, 3.34 K/BB, 9.9 K/9, .221 OBA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pitcher A is Aaron Harang, while Pitcher B is Mark Prior. Prior's OBA and WHIP are a bit better, but is Harang really that much worse just because "he can't win?" I think wins are very circumstancial

 

Harang is a better pitcher. He literally pitches the ball better.

That's not the issue at hand.

 

You're a major league manager, your season has just ended.

 

Would you rather have:

 

The Cy Young winner (he clearly deserved the award because he had the best era, whip, etc stats he can control, but only 10 wins, out of his control. he had no run support) and just miss the playoffs

 

or

 

A pitcher with an ERA over 4.00 with 15 wins and make the playoffs

 

In the end, who was more important to your team?

[Derwood]

Okay, another comparison for discussion:

 

Who has been a better pitcher this year?

 

PITCHER A:

 

9-12, 3.60 ERA, 1.23 WHIP, 2.98 K/BB, 7.1 K/9, .253 OBA

 

or

 

PITCHER B:

 

11-5, 3.64 ERA, 1.16 WHIP, 3.34 K/BB, 9.9 K/9, .221 OBA

 

Pitcher A is Aaron Harang, while Pitcher B is Mark Prior. Prior's OBA and WHIP are a bit better, but is Harang really that much worse just because "he can't win?" I think wins are very circumstancial

 

Harang is a better pitcher. He literally pitches the ball better.

That's not the issue at hand.

 

You're a major league manager, your season has just ended.

 

Would you rather have:

 

The Cy Young winner (he clearly deserved the award because he had the best era, whip, etc stats he can control, but only 10 wins, out of his control. he had no run support) and just miss the playoffs

 

or

 

A pitcher with an ERA over 4.00 with 15 wins and make the playoffs

 

In the end, who was more important to your team?

 

Clearly you would like to make the playoffs regardless of who pitches and how well. This is sort of a silly question. That's like saying "would you rather have a team full of guys with a .380 OBP but miss the playoffs or a team full of 150 K hitters and win the World Series." Naturally the goal is the championship and not the individual performances, but usually one begets the other.

[neely crenshaw]

unfortunately prior and harang have had pretty similar years. prior has continued to have his era rise. most people that love prior either don't realize he has a 3.70 era or that it's above 5.00 the second half of the season or think it's a phase...the truth is that right now prior is a good not great pitcher. he can be very good but does not dominate like in 2003. he has shown little to make me feel that this is going to change.

[Derwood]

unfortunately prior and harang have had pretty similar years. prior has continued to have his era rise. most people that love prior either don't realize he has a 3.70 era or that it's above 5.00 the second half of the season or think it's a phase...the truth is that right now prior is a good not great pitcher. he can be very good but does not dominate like in 2003. he has shown little to make me feel that this is going to change.

 

Unfortunately, the only way we're likely to be rid of our pitching coach is if his boss goes too.

[JC]

 

Unfortunately, the only way we're likely to be rid of our pitching coach is if his boss goes too.

 

Which boss?

 

Rothschild was brought in pre-Dusty. I don't know that there is any particularly strong relationship between the two. Dusty's guy is Pole, who could easily slide into the pitching coach's job.

 

Further, I don't know how much Rothschild is enjoying himself. I could see him searching for greener pastures.

[Derwood]

 

Unfortunately, the only way we're likely to be rid of our pitching coach is if his boss goes too.

 

Which boss?

 

Rothschild was brought in pre-Dusty. I don't know that there is any particularly strong relationship between the two. Dusty's guy is Pole, who could easily slide into the pitching coach's job.

 

Further, I don't know how much Rothschild is enjoying himself. I could see him searching for greener pastures.

 

Perhaps we can send him a Pepperidge Farms Meat and Cheese basket with our fondest regards and best wishes for better employment next year.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

 

Unfortunately, the only way we're likely to be rid of our pitching coach is if his boss goes too.

 

Which boss?

 

Rothschild was brought in pre-Dusty. I don't know that there is any particularly strong relationship between the two. Dusty's guy is Pole, who could easily slide into the pitching coach's job.

 

Further, I don't know how much Rothschild is enjoying himself. I could see him searching for greener pastures.

 

Perhaps we can send him a Pepperidge Farms Meat and Cheese basket with our fondest regards and best wishes for better employment next year.

 

While I am no Rothschild fan these days, I think Dick Pole would be worse as pitching coach.

[goonys evil twin]

While I am no Rothschild fan these days, I think Dick Pole would be worse as pitching coach.

 

Yeah, the last thing the Cubs need are more Dusty yes men in positions of power.

[Mizzou]

To the people who aren't Rothschild fans... what is your problem with him? Just curious, cause I've heard alot of people around baseball say that he's one of the top pitching coaches in the game.