K-Town

No, he's not easily the best pitcher. If he was, there'd be more than you and one other Cardinal fan on here saying he deserves the award. That's another one of those remarks you throw in just to get a rise out of people. You're trolling basically, but you're trying to cover it up. Keep it up... Re-read my post. I said he's the best pitcher on the best team (in other words, the Cards are the best team, and he is their best pitcher). How is that trolling?

THE CY YOUNG IS NOT A TEAM AWARD! Wow, it's like talking to the wall here. No, it's not a team award, but should be based on how much you help your team, in my opinion. By the logic, you should be arguing Donetrelle should win the Cy Young. Because not only has he put up pretty high numbers on the mound but his bat has been key for the Marlins also. Good point. Let me re-phrase: It should be based on how much a pitcher helps his team, by pitching.

THE CY YOUNG IS NOT A TEAM AWARD! Wow, it's like talking to the wall here. No, it's not a team award, but should be based on how much you help your team, in my opinion.

That's a reasonable post. He's easily the best pitcher, on easily the best team, which has the best ERA in the league. That shoudl count for something (I know, not much, but it sounds good!) :)

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.

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".

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.

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.

I'm talking about ....um........ Bruce Springsteen and Roger Clemens. Did I spell it wrong? :roll:

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Carpenter is more effective that Clemens, Lidge, Izzy, Cordero..... everybody, in the late innings. So then you don't need Izzy then? Can the Cubs have him? Cause we're a team that believes the bullpen is there for a reason. Mainly so that you don't burn your starters into the ground when you have a huge lead on the division, and when they've only gone over 200 innings once. But I guess the playoffs aren't important right? BINGO!! That's been the crux of my argument for 35+ pages. No, the Cards DON'T need Izzy when Carpenter pitches. Which makes Izzy that much "fresher" for the other 4 starters. And it's not because Carpenter is being "burned into the ground". He's throwing fewer pitches than Clemens, actually. That's because he's so efficient. Which statistic would that fall under? His IP would be factored into his VORP, so it's included there. VORP doesn't break down specific situations, such as the one mentioned. I also doubt if VORP will tell us how much better Izzy (or another reliever) will pitch because he got that day off. I'd still rather go with specific metircs that measure what is than what if's when determining the better pitcher. 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.

Once again, you lie to make the statistics favor you. CARPENTER HAS THROWN MORE PITCHES THAN CLEMENS. Maybe the Astros are being smarter about this... 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.

Carpenter is more effective that Clemens, Lidge, Izzy, Cordero..... everybody, in the late innings. So then you don't need Izzy then? Can the Cubs have him? Cause we're a team that believes the bullpen is there for a reason. Mainly so that you don't burn your starters into the ground when you have a huge lead on the division, and when they've only gone over 200 innings once. But I guess the playoffs aren't important right? BINGO!! That's been the crux of my argument for 35+ pages. No, the Cards DON'T need Izzy when Carpenter pitches. Which makes Izzy that much "fresher" for the other 4 starters. And it's not because Carpenter is being "burned into the ground". He's throwing fewer pitches than Clemens, actually. That's because he's so efficient. Which statistic would that fall under? His IP would be factored into his VORP, so it's included there. VORP doesn't break down specific situations, such as the one mentioned. I also doubt if VORP will tell us how much better Izzy (or another reliever) will pitch because he got that day off.

Carpenter is more effective that Clemens, Lidge, Izzy, Cordero..... everybody, in the late innings. And Clemens is more effective than Carpenter in innings 1-6. Yup. I never really disputed that.

Carpenter is more effective that Clemens, Lidge, Izzy, Cordero..... everybody, in the late innings. So then you don't need Izzy then? Can the Cubs have him? Cause we're a team that believes the bullpen is there for a reason. Mainly so that you don't burn your starters into the ground when you have a huge lead on the division, and when they've only gone over 200 innings once. But I guess the playoffs aren't important right? BINGO!! That's been the crux of my argument for 35+ pages. No, the Cards DON'T need Izzy when Carpenter pitches. Which makes Izzy that much "fresher" for the other 4 starters. And it's not because Carpenter is being "burned into the ground". He's throwing fewer pitches than Clemens, actually. That's because he's so efficient. Which statistic would that fall under?

I'm too stupid to know what you mean. :?

"More valuable" is an extremely arbitrary term. We've been discussing it for 35 pages. It's arbitrary when you ignore the number of quantitative metrics that favor Clemens when trying to determine how valuable a pitcher is. I'm not ignoring them. The metrics don't tell us everything, though. Last Saturday's match-up was a great example. Clemens pitched well, and came away with good "metric", and so did Carpenter. But Carpenter's contribution to his team was so much greater that it wasn't even a contest. The fact that Carpenter gave his team 9 solid innings (while Clemens gave his team 5), following the 13-inning affair the night before, is somewhat a microcosm of why I think Carpenter often helps his team more than the metrics tell us.

Carpenter is more effective that Clemens, Lidge, Izzy, Cordero..... everybody, in the late innings.

That's a reasonable post. I don't necessarily agree, but it's well-stated.

"More valuable" is an extremely arbitrary term. We've been discussing it for 35 pages.

So let me get this straight... you'd rather put a dead tired starter on the mound in the 9th inning with the game on the line, than a dominating closer that is fresh, and is paid to slam the door? Wow. Going the distance is fine. But you put the pitcher out there that is going to help your team win the most. A dead tired guy, and a fresh guy that is extremely dominant shouldn't even be an argument. Carpenter has a .448 OPS-against in innings 7 thru 9. The Cards have a good bullpen, but they don't have anybody THAT good. Or is that just another "meaningless statistic"?