8/17 vs. Angels

[Will617]

Cliff Lee's W/L is worse than both Price and Lester. I think that Lee has been the best pitcher in the AL.

[Yaz Sideburn]

What? Please quote my post when I EVER said anything about wins.

 

i said, "it's bull that they give it to guys based on wins and what team they play for"

 

and you said, "not in my opinion"

[Yaz Sideburn]

good to see the homegrown guys getting things done. buchholz pitches 7 scoreless and kalish provides more than enough offense with the grand slam

[WhiskeyBreath]

I thought it was apparent I was referring to what you said about multiple pitchers have been better this year. I should have clarified.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Pedroia didn't have the best game but at least he won on his birthday.

[Spudboy]

Pedroia didn't have the best game but at least he won on his birthday.

 

He looked fine to me.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

He looked fine to me.

 

Never said he wasn't fine haha. I'm just saying he didn't have one of the best games like the game before he was injured(3 HR in one game)

[Spudboy]

Never said he wasn't fine haha. I'm just saying he didn't have one of the best games like the game before he was injured(3 HR in one game)

 

My point is that I don't expect Pedroia to come back and be immediately productive. At best, he'll have to regain his timing at the plate.

 

Today, he conceded that he is not "100%" and likely will not be for the rest of the season.

 

So, given those restrictions, I have lowered my expectations of him. Although, if anyone can step back in and be a force, it would be him. The guy has a rather large set.

[Palodios]

The concern I have is... will it be worth having an injured Pedroia over a hot Lowrie? No pun intended haha.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

My point is that I don't expect Pedroia to come back and be immediately productive. At best, he'll have to regain his timing at the plate.

 

Today, he conceded that he is not "100%" and likely will not be for the rest of the season.

 

So, given those restrictions, I have lowered my expectations of him. Although, if anyone can step back in and be a force, it would be him. The guy has a rather large set.

 

True. I wasn't expecting him to have a monster game. I'm just glad he won on his birthday.

[Spudboy]

The concern I have is... will it be worth having an injured Pedroia over a hot Lowrie? No pun intended haha.

 

That's an understandable concern. Tito has to find way to incorporate Lowrie.

 

Really, Scutaro has been playing through some tough problems all season. Maybe Jed sees time at short and second spelling both.

[jacksonianmarch]

Cliff Lee's W/L is worse than both Price and Lester. I think that Lee has been the best pitcher in the AL.

 

Lee spent more than half his season with one of the worst teams in baseball

[jacksonianmarch]

Ubaldo is not winning CY at this point , even with his win totals

 

and Jacko... CC is not in the top 5 for AL CY

 

CC will finish 3rd. Does he deserve it, probably not. But being the ace on the best team in baseball will have a ton of weight with voters.

[Palodios]

Espn's Cy Young Predictor has him at second right now. Its usually very good, although I think as writers have begun to devalue wins, it isn't quite as accurate as in year's past.

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/features/cyyoung

[Yaz Sideburn]

Espn's Cy Young Predictor has him at second right now. Its usually very good, although I think as writers have begun to devalue wins, it isn't quite as accurate as in year's past.

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/features/cyyoung

 

it also doesn't list cliff lee, it has carl pavano in 3rd and rafael soriano in 4th. whatever forumala they use looks like a complete mess

[Palodios]

it also doesn't list cliff lee' date=' it has carl pavano in 3rd and rafael soriano in 4th. whatever forumala they use looks like a complete mess[/quote']

 

The formula is clearly stated at the bottom of the chart. The reason why he is not on the list is because he has a crummy win lose ratio, and because he has been on a noncontender all season. He's 5 wins down from the leader, and until last year, that's a big difference in perceived value. Not that I don't think he's the best pitcher right now-- anyone who can go 8 to 9 innings a night with 2-3 ER deserves the award, but the formula has been very effective.

[msubulldogs21]

Unless Cliff lee falls apart he oughta win the Cy Young. He has the chance to finish the season with a WHIP of under 1.00. That is just filthy.

 

Oh, and it sounds like the Sox played well tonight. Love that Kalish had a GS. He's becoming a fan favorite really quick.

[redsoxrules]

The formula is clearly stated at the bottom of the chart. The reason why he is not on the list is because he has a crummy win lose ratio' date=' and because he has been on a noncontender all season. He's 5 wins down from the leader, and until last year, that's a big difference in perceived value. Not that I don't think he's the best pitcher right now-- anyone who can go 8 to 9 innings a night with 2-3 ER deserves the award, but the formula has been very effective.[/quote']

 

effective ?

 

Neftali Feliz at number 8 ? explain to me how a 3-3 record and a 3.48 ERA is sitting at #8 for the CY.

 

 

 

Rafael Soriano at #4 is another big load of crap

 

that's a very crappy formula

[Palodios]

It has trouble dealing with relief pitching, but I'm assuming the formula is based on a series of trends from previous Cy Young winners, and since the precedents of winning relief pitchers are very short and few. Its not perfect, but its not flawed as you might think, pretty much all the right pitchers are in there, except for Lee.

[Will617]

Formula's very good at predicting who wins it. The winner has been in the top 3 the past few years. It's not very good at predicting where people finish after, and I think the formula probably overvalues closers.

The Cy Young typically goes to the best pitcher, but where people finish after the winner usually turns out to be a crapshoot.

I think Lee may be off it because he switched teams, but that's just a hunch.

[Will617]

Here's a midseason article from one of the people who vote on the Cy Young:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jon_heyman/07/12/midseason.awards/index.html

I think he's a middle-of-the-pack voter: Throws out numbers like WHIP, but also thinks Price is the best pitcher because he's "giving Tampa the ace it needs."

Also thinks Wright should get the MVP because he had one more RBI than Pujols.

And this gem: "Josh Johnson, Marlins. With the best WHIP (0.96) and ERA (1.70), he's certainly made it a race. His 9-3 record isn't bad, but some folks (including myself) count the record, especially when another guy is a ridiculous 15-1."

IMO, it seems like voters have shifted their views where W-L isn't the only stat they look at, but they still give it way too much credit.

[Youk Of The Nation]

I think Beckett has a serious shot at the Cy Youahahahahahahahahahaha nahhh.

[Palodios]

IMO, it seems like voters have shifted their views where W-L isn't the only stat they look at, but they still give it way too much credit.

 

In actuality, the stat junkies seriously undervalue wins. I get attacked on all sides when I even suggest that the only stats that matter are wins, and to a lesser extent runs scored, and innings pitched. The Cy Young is widely viewed by writers as the counterpart of the MVP for pitching. Most valuable pitcher, essentially.

 

I think with the steroid era, we lost the idea that baseball is a pitcher's game. It is the pitcher's game to win, not the batters. How can a pitcher be considered valuable if the team loses when he's on the mound? This award is not about who tried the hardest, its about who succeeded.

[msubulldogs21]

How can a pitcher be considered valuable if the team loses when he's on the mound? This award is not about who tried the hardest' date=' its about who succeeded.[/quote']

 

I see your point, but when a bad bullpen (as is the case with a lot of MLB teams) blows a W for a pitcher who just threw a gem, what can you do? Out of his control.

[jacksonianmarch]

The voters have made it pretty clear that being on a good team is one of the prerequisites UNLESS your season is just so much far and away better than the other guys a la Greinke last yr. It is just what they have done, and even though the award is not the Most Valuable Pitcher, it's actual merit has never been truly hammered out. Some people vote for the best pitcher, some people vote for the most valuable. Nobody who has won it didnt deserve consideration, but there were plenty of guys on losing teams with better peripherals and ERA who lost out due to W/L and team failure

[ORS]

In actuality' date=' the stat junkies seriously undervalue wins.[/quote']

No they don't. The whole object of the stats movement is to pinpoint those things that happen on a baseball field that contribute toward winning baseball games.

 

Wins for a pitcher, is a misleading stat. A poor pitcher with good luck (run support and an excellent BP) can win more baseball games than a superior pitcher with poor luck (bad run support and a crummy BP). If you looked solely at wins, you'd have an expectation that the poorer pitcher would be better moving forward when the opposite is true. This is the crux of "stats junkies" calling wins a poor measure, and they are right.

 

And it's not the "MVP" for pitchers. The stated purpose for the award is to recognize the "best" pitcher in the league. Best, not most valuable.

[jacksonianmarch]

Yet the majority of winners were actually the most valuable rather than the best

[Palodios]

No they don't. The whole object of the stats movement is to pinpoint those things that happen on a baseball field that contribute toward winning baseball games.

 

Wins for a pitcher, is a misleading stat. A poor pitcher with good luck (run support and an excellent BP) can win more baseball games than a superior pitcher with poor luck (bad run support and a crummy BP). If you looked solely at wins, you'd have an expectation that the poorer pitcher would be better moving forward when the opposite is true. This is the crux of "stats junkies" calling wins a poor measure, and they are right.

 

And it's not the "MVP" for pitchers. The stated purpose for the award is to recognize the "best" pitcher in the league. Best, not most valuable.

 

Whether or not you view the award as "MVP for pitchers" or not is irrelevant. That's how the writers view it. I am not suggesting that advanced statistics do not tell you things about the pitcher. They tell you everything. I am simply emphasizing the point that in the grand scheme of things, they do not matter to the team. We've become obsessed with individual records, but this is still a team sport. A loss is a loss, and when it comes to the value of the pitcher, it does not matter how it happens.

[ORS]

Sure it matters, if you are interested in identifying the best pitcher. That the writers have taken this award off on a "valuable" tangent doesn't change what the award was created for and what it is supposed to mean.

[Palodios]

Wins has been used as a major statistic since the creation of the award, it is not a new thing. Its incredibly rare for a bad pitcher to have a very good winning season anyway-- remember when Dice-k went 18-3, and everyone was saying that he was one of the statistically worst pitchers to ever do that? Even with his low inning count, he still had very very few ER.

 

He has recently been the shining example of why wins are a bad statistic, but I value Dice-k a lot more than other people, because lucky or not, when he's on the mound, the team usually gets a win and that's the only thing I care about. I also think his inconsistent innings (getting out of 30 minute bases loaded situations, mixed with five minute 1-2-3 innings) disrupts the opposing pitcher, which is why he gets such great run support.

 

Is Wins an oversimplified statistic? Yes. Does it give a complete picture of how good a pitcher is? No. But there is no reason to disregard a statistic that is so explicitly tied in with how the team performs while the pitcher is on the mound.