Should Pedro be thrown into the NL Cy Young Mix?

[wh1t3bread]

Almost all the talk is about Clemens and Carpenter. His record stands right now at 12-3. He will start about 10 or 11 more games so it is plausible that he can record 8 more wins and reach the 20 game plateau. He leads the NL in strikeouts (155) and opponents batting average against (.184). His numbers say he should be in consideration. I still give it to Carpenter, but Pedro is putting together a great first year with the Mets.

ERA W L G GS CG ShO IP BB K RATIO BAVG
P. Martinez 2.76 12 3 21 21 2 0 150.0 29 155 0.85 .184
R. Clemens 1.45 10 4 22 22 0 0 149.0 42 135 0.95 .188
C. Carpenter 2.26 16 4 22 22 5 4 163.1 37 151 0.99 .213

[CollinEstes]

Yeah but I don't think Pedro will win. But I think Roy Oswalt gets overshadowed even though he should be in contention.

Oswalt- 14-8, 2.40 ERA, 117 ks, 4 CG,

[wh1t3bread]

I agree about Oswalt. If Clemens wasn't wearing the same uniform you would hear about him alot more I think.

[Boris]

absolutely. Pedro should always be considered a contender for the Cy Young.

[New001]

What makes you say Carpenter should get it over Clemens? It seems like everyone now is saying Carpenter is #1, but as much as I hate Clemens, he's having an absolutely incredible season.

[mmbt0ne]

If Smoltz keeps going his name will start being mentioned too. 8-0 in his last 10 starts.

[LoaferGee12]

How is Clemens so frickin good every year /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[sublime]

thrown into it? hes been the best pitcher so far in the NL to date.

[ QUOTE ]
thrown into it? hes been the best pitcher so far in the NL to date.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clemens and Carpenter are both having better seasons.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
thrown into it? hes been the best pitcher so far in the NL to date.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clemens and Carpenter are both having better seasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clemens : 149IP 135K 42BB 100 HITS HBP 2 HR 6

Carpenter: 163 125K 37BB 125 HITS HBP 1 HR 9

Martinez: 150 155K 29BB 99 HITS HBP 2 HR 11

(FWIW, Carpenter plays in the most hitters friendly park, with pedro in the most pitcher friendly)

[sublime]

also, these numbers are with pedro haveing one less start then both, he catches up tonight.

his line tonight: 7IP 8H 3ER 2BB 8SO 1HR

[tbach24]

[ QUOTE ]
also, these numbers are with pedro haveing one less start then both, he catches up tonight.

his line tonight: 7IP 8H 3ER 2BB 8SO 1HR

[/ QUOTE ]

That actually hurts his average I think.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also, these numbers are with pedro haveing one less start then both, he catches up tonight.

his line tonight: 7IP 8H 3ER 2BB 8SO 1HR

[/ QUOTE ]

That actually hurts his average I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

well i was just being fair /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[lastchance]

ERA:
Martinez 2.76
Carpenter 2.26
Clemens 1.49

[Ballgame]

Carpenter has 151 strikeouts.

[New001]

I haven't looked at any numbers, but Busch is more hitter friendly than Houston (Minute Maid just sounds retarded)?

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
ERA:
Martinez 2.76
Carpenter 2.26
Clemens 1.49

[/ QUOTE ]

like the ERA's of these three men speak for themselves? they dont.

FIP (http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/index.php?view=pitching&linesToDisplay=30&sortBy=f ip&thenBy=fip&leagueAbbr=NL&qualified=Yes) formula:

Fielding Independent Pitching, a measure of all those things for which a pitcher is specifically responsible. The formula is (HR*13+(BB+HBP)*3-K*2)/IP, plus a league-specific factor (usually around 3.2) to round out the number to an equivalent ERA number. FIP helps you understand how well a pitcher pitched, regardless of how well his fielders fielded.

Pedro 2.54
Carpenter 2.60
Roger 2.63


While its not a perfect way to judge a pitcher its much better than ERA.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
Carpenter has 151 strikeouts.

[/ QUOTE ]

oops, he does. nice catch.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't looked at any numbers, but Busch is more hitter friendly than Houston (Minute Maid just sounds retarded)?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, Park Factors (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor?season=2005)

[Ballgame]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ERA:
Martinez 2.76
Carpenter 2.26
Clemens 1.49

[/ QUOTE ]

like the ERA's of these three men speak for themselves? they dont.

FIP (http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/index.php?view=pitching&linesToDisplay=30&sortBy=f ip&thenBy=fip&leagueAbbr=NL&qualified=Yes) formula:

Fielding Independent Pitching, a measure of all those things for which a pitcher is specifically responsible. The formula is (HR*13+(BB+HBP)*3-K*2)/IP, plus a league-specific factor (usually around 3.2) to round out the number to an equivalent ERA number. FIP helps you understand how well a pitcher pitched, regardless of how well his fielders fielded.

Pedro 2.54
Carpenter 2.60
Roger 2.63


While its not a perfect way to judge a pitcher its much better than ERA.

[/ QUOTE ]


Interesting numbers. I obviously need to beef up on my baseball metrics so I can join in some of the discussions. All I know as a Cards fan is I'm confident when Carpenter is pitching, and if he performs in the playoffs I won't care too much about who wins the Cy Young.

[New001]

Explain how that formula relates to better pitching?

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ERA:
Martinez 2.76
Carpenter 2.26
Clemens 1.49

[/ QUOTE ]

like the ERA's of these three men speak for themselves? they dont.

FIP (http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/index.php?view=pitching&linesToDisplay=30&sortBy=f ip&thenBy=fip&leagueAbbr=NL&qualified=Yes) formula:

Fielding Independent Pitching, a measure of all those things for which a pitcher is specifically responsible. The formula is (HR*13+(BB+HBP)*3-K*2)/IP, plus a league-specific factor (usually around 3.2) to round out the number to an equivalent ERA number. FIP helps you understand how well a pitcher pitched, regardless of how well his fielders fielded.

Pedro 2.54
Carpenter 2.60
Roger 2.63


While its not a perfect way to judge a pitcher its much better than ERA.

[/ QUOTE ]


Interesting numbers. I obviously need to beef up on my baseball metrics so I can join in some of the discussions. All I know as a Cards fan is I'm confident when Carpenter is pitching, and if he performs in the playoffs I won't care too much about who wins the Cy Young.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, if you check out the XFIP stat, which takes into account a pitchers 'luck' with the homerun, Carpenter projects to pitch better than both of them the second half.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
Explain how that formula relates to better pitching?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um. huh?

I gave the explanation from the web site which is the source.

[New001]

Why are pitchers "directly responsible" for a homerun but no other hit against them? Yes, it's the only place a hitter can put the ball where the fielder can't get it, but I guess I don't see how trying to eliminate fielding from ERA with just K, BB, HBP, and HR is supposed to work.

[tbach24]

The idea is that if you are making batters miss the pitches (strikeouts) that they have no chance of putting it in play at which point they may or may not get a hit. If a pitcher is giving up homeruns, then he's usually giving up beefy pitches (although I would guess the varience on HR's is high due to "mistake pitches" and those long foul balls [i'm still unsure how they don't count foul balls in statistics]). So basically it's just that they say it's "defense independent" because if the defense was really lucky and alligned themselves right where the ball was going to be hit every time the pitcher's BAA would be .000 and conversely if they had unlucky/awful fielding the BAA would be 1.00. So they're trying to eliminate this luck component.

Sorry if thats confusing

Edit- I'm also not 100% on it so Jack/sublime/whoever correct me if I'm wrong

[New001]

It just seems to me like if you want to normalize a pitcher's ERA with defense, then you should take into account his team's defense somehow. I understand the intent of this stat, I guess I just don't like it.

Thanks for the explanation though.

[sublime]

It just seems to me like if you want to normalize a pitcher's ERA with defense, then you should take into account his team's defense somehow.

why bother, when you can just eliminate the defense altogether? not only that, what if all three pitcher leave men on base in the 8th inning with two outs yet one teams has a horrendous bullpen. should pitcher A be deemed a better pitcher because he has a great defense behind him, AND a top notch reliever to strand the men he left on base? of course not, yet that's exactly what ERA does.

[wh1t3bread]

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you say Carpenter should get it over Clemens? It seems like everyone now is saying Carpenter is #1, but as much as I hate Clemens, he's having an absolutely incredible season.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clemens is having an awesome season. But Carpenter has 5 complete games and 4 shutouts. That is pretty amazing in my book. Not to mention that he might wind up with 24 or 25 wins. That should give him enough of an edge to win the Cy Young.

[wh1t3bread]

[ QUOTE ]
If Smoltz keeps going his name will start being mentioned too. 8-0 in his last 10 starts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize he was on such a good run. I'm looking at his numbers now and he should be in consideration as well.

[New001]

I don't think ERA is a particularly good way to determine a pitcher's effectiveness either, in part because of the scenario you just gave, but you can't just put up a stat like that FIP and say one pitcher is better.

If you could normalize a pitcher's stats to an average defense, or the defenses to each other, or whatever you want, it seems like it'd be a far more useful tool than ignoring it alltogether.

ERA is flawed. I never said it wasn't.

[sublime]

but you can't just put up a stat like that FIP and say one pitcher is better.

why not? what is it lacking? total hits allowed is the only thing and that is skewered by the defense behind you and luck. it probably deserves some weight though. so whilst its not perfect, its far better than ERA, which is better than W/L etc....

FWIW

carpenter 125 hits in 163 innings (.76 inning)
clemens 100 in 149 (.67 inning)
martinez 99 in 150 (.66 inning)

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think ERA is a particularly good way to determine a pitcher's effectiveness either, in part because of the scenario you just gave, but you can't just put up a stat like that FIP and say one pitcher is better.

If you could normalize a pitcher's stats to an average defense, or the defenses to each other, or whatever you want, it seems like it'd be a far more useful tool than ignoring it alltogether.

ERA is flawed. I never said it wasn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem unable to accept the fact that pitcher's have VERY LITTLE control over whether or not balls in play turn into hits. They don't. This has been studied countless times. It may be best to include hit rate as a very small element when evaluating a pitcher. Ignoring it completely is much, much better than using something like Bill James' Component ERA (which is basically like FIP, but instead of assuming every pitcher allows the same percentage of hits on balls in play, uses the pitcher's actual hit rate).

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think ERA is a particularly good way to determine a pitcher's effectiveness either, in part because of the scenario you just gave, but you can't just put up a stat like that FIP and say one pitcher is better.

If you could normalize a pitcher's stats to an average defense, or the defenses to each other, or whatever you want, it seems like it'd be a far more useful tool than ignoring it alltogether.

ERA is flawed. I never said it wasn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem unable to accept the fact that pitcher's have VERY LITTLE control over whether or not balls in play turn into hits. They don't. This has been studied countless times. It may be best to include hit rate as a very small element when evaluating a pitcher. Ignoring it completely is much, much better than using something like Bill James' Component ERA (which is basically like FIP, but instead of assuming every pitcher allows the same percentage of hits on balls in play, uses the pitcher's actual hit rate).

[/ QUOTE ]

ROBERTO HAS BEEN FREED!

[Bulldog]

1 Clemens
.
.
.
.
.
2 Carpenter
3 Oswalt
4 Martinez

[CollinEstes]

Desite the FIP stat I don't really see any realistic chance of Pedro beating out Capenter/Clemens. Since the voters probably won't be making their decisions off of FIP.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]

You seem unable to accept the fact that pitcher's have VERY LITTLE control over whether or not balls in play turn into hits. They don't. This has been studied countless times. It may be best to include hit rate as a very small element when evaluating a pitcher. Ignoring it completely is much, much better than using something like Bill James' Component ERA (which is basically like FIP, but instead of assuming every pitcher allows the same percentage of hits on balls in play, uses the pitcher's actual hit rate).

[/ QUOTE ]

The McCracken theory that pitchers don't really affect balls in play was pretty soundly shown to be overstated in this excellent article (http://diamond-mind.com/articles/ipavg2.htm) . Anyone interested in this sort of stuff should read it.

I also wanted to say, that when it comes to awards like MVP and Cy Young, we should not care who got lucky/unlucky. If we can prove that some guy who got really unlucky is the best pitcher in the league, we still shouldn't give him the Cy Young. The awards should go to whoever had the best year, not who should have had the best year. You don't give a guy first place in a tourney just because he played best, he actually has to win the thing.

[CollinEstes]

Very good point Paluka. Awards are subjective and I think that is how they should be.

[imported_The Vibesman]

[ QUOTE ]
I also wanted to say, that when it comes to awards like MVP and Cy Young, we should not care who got lucky/unlucky. If we can prove that some guy who got really unlucky is the best pitcher in the league, we still shouldn't give him the Cy Young. The awards should go to whoever had the best year, not who should have had the best year. You don't give a guy first place in a tourney just because he played best, he actually has to win the thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

MVP is one thing, it's almost totally subjective; who can say what skill set was "most valuable" to a team? But the Cy Young is supposed to go to the best pitcher for the given year. Wins and ERA are not the best stats for measuring that. Wins is terrible; it punishes a good pitcher for being on a bad team.
That said, they will usually give it to the guy with the most wins, because they are lazy and don't want to look at the data. Pedro has already been screwed out of at least one Cy, he'll get screwed again.
If they want to give an award for the most wins, that's fine. But that's not what the Cy Young Award is supposed to be for.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also wanted to say, that when it comes to awards like MVP and Cy Young, we should not care who got lucky/unlucky. If we can prove that some guy who got really unlucky is the best pitcher in the league, we still shouldn't give him the Cy Young. The awards should go to whoever had the best year, not who should have had the best year. You don't give a guy first place in a tourney just because he played best, he actually has to win the thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

MVP is one thing, it's almost totally subjective; who can say what skill set was "most valuable" to a team? But the Cy Young is supposed to go to the best pitcher for the given year. Wins and ERA are not the best stats for measuring that. Wins is terrible; it punishes a good pitcher for being on a bad team.
That said, they will usually give it to the guy with the most wins, because they are lazy and don't want to look at the data. Pedro has already been screwed out of at least one Cy, he'll get screwed again.
If they want to give an award for the most wins, that's fine. But that's not what the Cy Young Award is supposed to be for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was more refering to ERA than wins. In 1999, Greg Maddux was insanely unlucky. He somehow gave up 258 hits in 219 innings, and his ERA balooned to 3.57. Everything points to this being simply being an unlucky year for him. That doesn't mean we should just give him the Cy Young anyway.

[imported_The Vibesman]

Well, that's a lot of hits to give up in that many innings. He didn't pitch particularly well. Now you could use a stat like BABIP (batting average on balls in play) against to determine if he was "lucky" or "unlucky" which could help you predict if he would pitch as bad next year. But it wouldn't mean that he didn't pitch badly. I take issue with the idea that, if his team scored 10 runs in each of his starts, he would lead the league in wins and should then get the award because of his "results". He still pitched badly.
So basically I think we are saying the same thing.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
But the Cy Young is supposed to go to the best pitcher for the given year. Wins and ERA are not the best stats for measuring that.

[/ QUOTE ]

511 wins. Winningest pitcher in the history of the game. Isn't that why they named an award after him? Is Cy Young sabermetrically the best pitcher of all time? I have no clue, but I doubt it.

Wins may be overated for statfreaks or fantasy players but in real life they are the one and only thing that matters. Baseball is a very results oriented game. The winners get to go to the playoffs and the ultimate champions get a trophy and a Wheaties box no matter what their stats were.

[imported_The Vibesman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the Cy Young is supposed to go to the best pitcher for the given year. Wins and ERA are not the best stats for measuring that.

[/ QUOTE ]

511 wins. Winningest pitcher in the history of the game. Isn't that why they named an award after him? Is Cy Young sabermetrically the best pitcher of all time? I have no clue, but I doubt it.

Wins may be overated for statfreaks or fantasy players but in real life they are the one and only thing that matters. Baseball is a very results oriented game. The winners get to go to the playoffs and the ultimate champions get a trophy and a Wheaties box no matter what their stats were.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why don't they just give the Cy Young to the best starting pitcher on the World Series winner?

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
So why don't they just give the Cy Young to the best starting pitcher on the World Series winner?


[/ QUOTE ]

From what I understand these awards are for regular season accomplishment which gets them (hopefully) to the world series. But you already know that so I guess I don't really understand your question.

[imported_The Vibesman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So why don't they just give the Cy Young to the best starting pitcher on the World Series winner?


[/ QUOTE ]

From what I understand these awards are for regular season accomplishment which gets them (hopefully) to the world series. But you already know that so I guess I don't really understand your question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I was being glib. Let me put in another way: Do you believe that a pitcher who gives up 4 runs per game but plays on a team that scores 6 runs per game is better than a pitcher that gives up 3 runs a game and plays on a team that scores 2? That is what it seems like you are telling me. If so, we will agree to disagree. I don't believe that. Ask the Dodgers what was more important, Derek Lowe's prior win count or his peripheral stats. I know what they thought when they signed him, and I know what they think now...

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe that a pitcher who gives up 4 runs per game but plays on a team that scores 6 runs per game is better than a pitcher that gives up 3 runs a game and plays on a team that scores 2?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it is subjective. Some guys pitch just well enough to win while some guys pitch just poorly enough to lose no matter the situation.

I do think wins are much less important than they used to be. With the emphasis on bullpens and pitchcounts these days much of the actual pitching aspect is taken away from the starter. Back when Gibson and Marichal and Jenkins etc. were throwing 30+ complete games a year it was pretty much on them. They got into and out of the sticky situations all by themselves. I'm guessing back when Cy Young was amassing 511 wins it was the same way.

Typically though guys who give up 4+ runs a game won't be considered for the award because they will still lose enough and more effective guys (runwise) will eclipse them. But given guys with similarly effective era's the guy with the wins (ie Carpenter in the Pedro, Clemens debate) should win it even if his internal stats are slighty worse because that one external stat (Wins) is the bottom line. The actual result and what the team actually did when he threw the ball. He can thank Pujols and company and a great bullpen but the bottom line is his team was more effective when he pitched than the Mets or Astros when the other guys pitched. It's not Clemens fault Houston couldn't hit a lick in April and May but it's not Carpenters fault either as he did what he needed to do to notch the W's for his team.

[Paluka]

Why do people think strikeouts should factor into deciding who should win the Cy Young? I understand that Ks are an indicator of how good the pitcher is etc..., but people seem to think they should count for something on their own.

[RR12]

Strikeouts limit the chance of errors, ability to move runners over, slows the down the hit an run attempts which keeps players from scoring from first.

Can't you make a an argument that wins are overrated? It takes good pitching, but also good feilding and ability the to score runs. Do you feel era is the most important stat when figuring cy young? How about whip? Would you look at this if you were a voter?

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the Cy Young is supposed to go to the best pitcher for the given year. Wins and ERA are not the best stats for measuring that.

[/ QUOTE ]

511 wins. Winningest pitcher in the history of the game. Isn't that why they named an award after him? Is Cy Young sabermetrically the best pitcher of all time? I have no clue, but I doubt it.

Wins may be overated for statfreaks or fantasy players but in real life they are the one and only thing that matters. Baseball is a very results oriented game. The winners get to go to the playoffs and the ultimate champions get a trophy and a Wheaties box no matter what their stats were.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wins/losses are a horrible way to measure a PITCHERS season.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
Strikeouts limit the chance of errors, ability to move runners over, slows the down the hit an run attempts which keeps players from scoring from first.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but but in theory all of this is taken into account in how many runs end up scoring. Like I said, I understand all the peripheral benifits of strikeouts and what they indicate about a pitcher, but I just think that some people think they should count for something beyond that.

[imported_The Vibesman]

[ QUOTE ]
Strikeouts limit the chance of errors, ability to move runners over, slows the down the hit an run attempts which keeps players from scoring from first.

Can't you make a an argument that wins are overrated? It takes good pitching, but also good feilding and ability the to score runs. Do you feel era is the most important stat when figuring cy young? How about whip? Would you look at this if you were a voter?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd look at a combination of ERA, Runs Allowed, WHIP, K's, K/9, BB/9 and K/BB. I think overrated is actually weak, wins are almost meaningless in the context of figuring out how well a guy pitched. I don't believe that some pitchers routinely pitch "well enough to win" while others routinely pitch "just well enough to lose." Clemens was pitching the same exact way with the Yankees as he is pitching now (he may even be pitching better now), but with the Yankees it was "well enough to win," with the Astros it is "just well enough to lose." If he is a good pitcher, why can't he pitch "well enough to win" with the Astros?
This is IMO, many people disagree with me, including some "respected" baseball writers.

*edit - One more point, none of this is to say I don't believe in "clutch" pitching, or the ability of a pitcher to ratchet it up a notch every once in a while when needed. There are stats guys that believe, for example, that a pitcher can't control when he gives up hits, so if they are all bunched together in one inning, it is just bad luck. I think this isn't always true; sometimes it is, but sometimes guys can get disturbed mentally and allow it to mess up their focus/mechanics and so on, which causes the inning to spin out of control. On the other hand, there may be guys who can really dial it up and get a K w/ a runner on 3rd and one out, and we just don't know how to quantify that ability yet. It's like Bill James says about clutch hitting, just because we can't measure it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You seem unable to accept the fact that pitcher's have VERY LITTLE control over whether or not balls in play turn into hits. They don't. This has been studied countless times. It may be best to include hit rate as a very small element when evaluating a pitcher. Ignoring it completely is much, much better than using something like Bill James' Component ERA (which is basically like FIP, but instead of assuming every pitcher allows the same percentage of hits on balls in play, uses the pitcher's actual hit rate).

[/ QUOTE ]

The McCracken theory that pitchers don't really affect balls in play was pretty soundly shown to be overstated in this excellent article (http://diamond-mind.com/articles/ipavg2.htm) . Anyone interested in this sort of stuff should read it.

I also wanted to say, that when it comes to awards like MVP and Cy Young, we should not care who got lucky/unlucky. If we can prove that some guy who got really unlucky is the best pitcher in the league, we still shouldn't give him the Cy Young. The awards should go to whoever had the best year, not who should have had the best year. You don't give a guy first place in a tourney just because he played best, he actually has to win the thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so Pedro has given up the fewest hits of the three. He should be penalized because of his bullpens inabilty to strand his baserunners? That also is a version of luck.

(fwiw, I agree. Hits should be taken into account, although I think they should be put alongside a stat like FIP and used in a subjective manner)