Should Pedro be thrown into the NL Cy Young Mix? - Page 4

sublime · #31 08-04-2005, 12:12 AM

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 · #32 08-04-2005, 12:12 AM

[ 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 · #33 08-04-2005, 12:13 AM

[ 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 · #34 08-04-2005, 08:55 AM

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

CollinEstes · #35 08-04-2005, 09:39 AM

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 · #36 08-04-2005, 09:58 AM

[ 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 . 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 · #37 08-04-2005, 10:00 AM

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

imported_The Vibesman · #38 08-04-2005, 11:39 AM

[ 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 · #39 08-04-2005, 11:43 AM

[ 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 · #40 08-04-2005, 12:01 PM

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.