NL Cy Young: Who would YOU vote for?
 

Chris Carpenter (Cardinals):
21-4 (30 starts), 2.31 ERA, 7 complete games, 4 shutouts, 226 innings pitched, 201 Ks, 0.99 WHIP

Dontrelle Willis (Marlins):
21-8 (30 starts), 2.49 ERA, 7 complete games, 5 shutouts, 209 innings pitched, 141 Ks, 1.11 WHIP

Roger Clemens (Astros):
11-7 (29 starts), 1.78 ERA, 1 complete games, 0 shutouts, 192 innings pitched, 171 Ks, 0.96 WHIP

Carpenter.

I cannot believe the amount of discussion this is generating. Guys, its over, this is no longer a race.

Damn it, sorry for mispelling "Dontrelle" in the poll part. I hate the way polls are done on this board. I always feel compelled to rush so I don't get the dreaded "you forgot the poll part, dude" message.

I'll give you one guess...

Maybe to you and me. But I keep hearing comments in the media to the contrary.

According to my unofficial count, the Astros are 13-16 in Clemens' starts, and the team hasn't won one of his starts since August 7. And yes, I count team performance, so even if I try to look past the fact that Carpenter has 10 more wins, the bottom line is that the Astros have a .528 winning percentage overall, and a .448 winning percentage when Clemens pitches. At some point, even if you can only chock it up to bad timing/luck, that has to count. Not to mention, Clemens won a Cy Young last year when, by the same argument people will make for Clemens this year, Randy Johnson could have won it. And Johnson had a far better record for a far worse team last year (my 1972 Steve Carlton theory).

I'm going with Carpenter, whose ERA isn't that much higher than Clemens' at this point.

Clemens should win this - but he won't. That being said, it isnt quite the travesty last year was.

What travesty is that?

I would have gone with Clemens, but after seeing Carpenter dominate the Mets last week he has my vote.

Every media member I hear discusses it for a while and then says, "of course it has to be Carpenter" Gotta fill air time I guess.

Granted, Clemens' 1st half was dominant--but I'm not sure where the hype is coming from at this point. Looking at the cold hard numbers, Clemens and Carpenter are very similar statistically, with the exception of wins and IP. Carpenter has a distinct advantage there, so I'd say give it to Carpenter...

Carpenter

First Cardinal to top 200 strikeouts since Jose DeLeon in 1989. That's a long time. I find it hard to believe, but then I think of all the hard throwers we've had since then...
Bryn Smith
John Tudor
Bob Tewksbury
Rheal Cormier
Rick Sutcliffe
Danny Jackson
Allen Watson
Mike Morgan
Kent Mercker
Kent Bottenfield
Jason Simontacchi
Brett Tomko

and I'm not surprised.

However, I would have thought Andy Benes, Todd Stottlemyre, Matt Morris, or even Darryl Kile would have made 200 strikeouts. Heck, I thought Rick Ankiel may have broke it.

Johnson should have own it over Clemens last year...

Pedro.

NOLAN RYAN!

You should put up a poll for MVP too. That dude from FoxSports.com who typically bugs me, Dayn Perry or whatever, has a nice column on the MVP where he says Derrek Lee should win. Now I like him a little more. :)

I refuse to even answer this poll until Bill James returns my phone call.

This is one of those years where the "valuable" part of the equation is really going to matter. Andruw Jones has certainly meant more to his team than any other player whose team will likely make the playoffs. However, Pujols has better numbers overall than Jones and deserves some credit for what he has done, but even with some big names in and out of the Cardinals' lineup, the fact that they've run away with that division has lessened the perception of his "value" to their winning ways. And Lee will get votes, but without a playoff team, he'd still need to be near Triple Crown numbers to generate first or second place votes.

Going to see Clemens on Monday in Pittsburgh, barring injury or rainouts. Really excited.

It's kind of sad, but I think the Astros have been shutout 7 of Clemens's starts. The times they've scored, they've scored 3 or less runs about 10 times. A few times, his pen has blown it for him. He's arguably the pitcher guys would want to face the least right about now and that's probably why he deserves it. But if Bob Welch has taught us anything, people care about wins.

My opinion, go with Ditka.

Independent of the wins, Carpenter still has similar stats plus he has pitched more innings. Carpenter is a 7 or 8 inning pitcher, while Clemens is a 6 inning pitcher at this point--Carpenter helps his team by his effectiveness and by his saving the Cards from overusing the bullpen in his starts.

Stats aren't the end all and be all of the Cy Young for me--in a similar FOFC poll last year, I voted for Schilling over Santana because of the intangible factor. As good as he is pitching this year, I still don't think Clemens is showing the intangibles that could justify a Cy Young over Carpenter...

Roffle. If by intangibles you mean "is a media whore, and pitched in Boston" then yes, Schilling has intangibles. Santana was miles better than Schilling, and them some.

That's a legitimate point. So why do you think Clemens should win it this year? His candidacy is also media driven...

Carp.

In fact, Carpenter just might be the MVP as well.

Okay, let's try to be fair here, though.

Carpenter did indeed pitch more innings, that much is true. But how good were those innings? Do some quick math here, and you figure out that Clemens has given up 38 earned runs. Carpenter has given up 58, in 34 more innings. So, the difference between those two, just in terms of earned runs, is this stat line:

34 innings, 20 earned runs, 5.29 ERA

It's pretty hard to give a lot of extra credit to Carpenter for giving more innings, when the "additional" innings compared to Clemens are probably below replacement level for even a marginal long reliever.


I'm not suggesting that Clemens is the obvious winner here - I just think there's a difference between "more innings of comparable worth" and just "more innings." By brushing off the difference in their ERA results, you minimize a pretty important difference between these two guys.

Honestly, if Clemens had stayed in some games longer, and had posted another 20 innings of 5+ ERA baseball in doing so -- would you really be saying that he had a better season as a result of doing so? I can't imagine you, or anyone, would.

I'd be interested to hear a defense of a vote for Willis. I haven't yet given any thought to park factors, but it seems awfully hard to justify voting for Willis ahead of Carpenter to me, when you line up their stat lines as done above.

That's is a pretty wild misuse of statistics there. You cannot shift earned runs around like that--in effect you are assuming that the extra earned runs that Carpenter gave up happened in the extra innings he pitched. In reality, those earned runs should be relatively evenly distributed among all of his innings.

Actually, his opponent batting average is actually lower during innings 7-9 than his overall opponents BA--so it is likely that his resultant ERA would be lower in those extra 34 innings...

To me, this is why the extra innings works for Carpenter. It's not like teams have an unlimited number of innings from their bullpens to plug in if the starter can't go 7 or 8 innings, as oppose to 5 or 6. So you can't just look at the ERAs of the Astros or Cardinals bullpens and decide that if Carpenter had pitched 34 less innings, those innings would have been taken by pitchers who would have pitched more effectively. That's not a given, because those extra innings have to come from somewhere. In other words, there's value in pitching more innings, even if less effectively (of course, it's a sliding scale).

I bet the Astros' bullpen would be better off if Clemens had an extra 34 innings this year, even if that bumped his ERA up to around 2.00. But that's the kind of thing that's admittedly impossible to quantify.

Actually, what's trying to point out to you is marginal value - that extra innings pitched badly are not really worth that much. You are misunderstanding the point. This was the same point as when people tried to argue for Pujols over Bonds in 2004 - 130 extra AB's are great, but when you get only 8 more hits- they really aren't worth much.

En garde.

You are, clearly, missing the point of the argument. Of course Carpenter did not have all his bad luck in his last 34 innings. The point is just that by lauding Carpenter for pitching more innings and simultaneously saying the two pitchers pitches "comparable" stats, you are essentially dismissing the significant difference in the two pitchers' stats. This isn't about where the meaningful difference in their resulting ERAs came from -- it's more about how very different their ERAs are, a point you shrug off above as if it's nothing at all.

I took Carpenter's stats for innings 7-9 (courtesy of ESPN) and converted it to a stat line:

IP H BB K R R/9
47.1 34 5 39 11 2.09

It's not exact, but the gist of it is that those are quality innings (34 of which Clemens didn't pitch)...

No, the "wild misuse of statistics" was when a 2.31 ERA and 1.78 ERA were labeled above as "similar stats" as if they were statistically inseparable. They are not. They are very dissimilar. Both good, but not on the same level at all.

And this does not, at all, respond to the point made above. It's not about "late innings" it's about the huge difference in quality between the innings that the two pitchers actually competed.

If Carpenter had a truly comparable ERA (assuming, for the moment, that this is the fairest measure of effectiveness) and did indeed pitch an extra 34 innings -- then you'd have a great point. There would be a lot of value in those extra, above-average innings.

But the innings difference between these two guys, given the fact that Carpenter's overall ERA is so much higher, is a matter of simple math. And the simple math, shown rather clearly for you above, reveals that that this innings differential does not qualify as "good innings." It's an ERA over 5. Case closed.

Okay, I will accept your point that Clemens .5 fewer ER per 9 innings he gives up compared to Carpenter is not insignificant.

My main argument that Carpenter's statistical performance are not that wildly dissimilar to Clemens', and the greater number of outs per game that Carpenter generates makes Carpenter a slightly more valuable pitcher.

Clearly IP does factor into your evaluation of who is worthy of the Cy Young, if it didn't you would be nominating a reliever with even better equivalized statistics than Clemens. So where do you draw the lines where IP becomes then ceases to become important?

But isn't this largely a hypothetical argument, since we don't get the benefit of seeing how well or poorly Clemens would pitch in those 34 extra innings? He's only pitched the number of innings he has because, in all candor, he's old, gets tired more easily, and can't handle the excess pitches. What if Clemens, if left in in certain of his starts this year for a total of 34 more innings, had a 7.94 EA for those innings?

Again, there's value in the fact that Carpenter pitched those extra innings, but again, it's largely unquantifiable. Stuff like, had he come out in the 6th inning of 6 of the games he pitched a minimum of 8 innings in, how would LaRussa have juggled the bullpen and how effective would those relievers have been having to work those extra days in a row, or just the cumulative innings? I'm sorry, I don't see this as a negative for Carpenter in any way.

Klingerware,
- Carpenter is essentialy Clemens + 34 innings with a 5.29 ERA. the question being posed by Quiksand is whether that extra 34 innings , given the relative ERA, is more than replacement value - and the answer, fairly clearly, is that it probably isn't. We can estimate the additional value of those 34 innings using WS or tweaked WS - which is how we would solve your reliever issue. I don't see the confusion here.

I guess I must have sent this in the wrong direction with this little anecdotal argument:



The point here is not what might have happened if Clemens had actually pitched more innings. My argument about these two pitcher's relative worth has nothing to do with this hypothetical situation. Sorry if the intended pithy observation above led some to believe that I was suggesting we could just "project out" one performance to more innings, or if I was somehow suggesting that it's the "extra" innings from Carpenter that were the bad ones.

(I still don't see how one could reach that inference, but I'm trying to grant the benefit of the doubt here in the spirit of fair play)


What I'm saying (once again) is that Carpenter's "more innings" are only worth something if they amount to "more good innings." And they obviously don't.

The only way you get from Clemens's totals to Carpenter's totals is by adding 34 innings of 5+ ERA ball. That is, very simply put, the difference between what these two pitchers actually accomplished. That is not quality, by any reasonable standard, much less by a Cy Young standard.

I can understand that arguement QS, but Carpenter is going through an amazing run right now. From June 1 on, he's started 19 games and completed 8 or more innings 15 times. (two times he went 7+ and the others were both 6+)

I'm not saying those extra innings are the end all. I am saying that it does impress me that Carpenter is not only pitching well, he's pitching deep into games.

A month ago, I would have said Clemens, but I'm leaning more toward Carpenter every day since Clemens is tailing off while Carpenter is still going strong.

Actually, I probably would have said Pedro a month ago. He's had a far stronger season than Willis has - #1 in WHIP, #3 in K/9, #2 in K/BB, #2 in Component ERA, #2 in Opponent BA & OPS.

Since I made mention of this earlier - I'll offer this on ballpark factors.

My best source indicates that of the three home fields for these pitchers, both Florida and Houston are essentially neutral with regard to runs scored. St. Louis has the only meaningful effect, and it's a slight depression of runs scored there (which presumably weakens Carpenter's argument, thoughonly slightly).

Just FWIW - I judge these things (quantified park effects) to be at least as much art as science, there may be other opinions on the matter.

And I actually voted for Carpenter, believe it or not.

My argument here is not with the general conclusion being drawn, but with the statement that Carpenter deserves credit for all these extra good innings. When compared to Clemens, this is a demonstrably false argument.

I understand the arguement and I couldn't agree with it more.

I'm just amazed at the run Carpenter has had with pitching that deep into games. 15 of 19 games going 8+? That reminds me of the 1970's, not this era of baseball.

Dola

The more I look at the numbers, the more I'm convinced that Clemens deserves it - here is his Opponents Batting line - 0.188/0.251/0.272 - that is freaking unbelievable! The only things Carpenter has in his favor are the innings and a better BB/9 ratio, which is more than made up for by Clemens BAA.

Even though I really hate the Cardinals, Carpenter should win it. He has had an incredible season.

It's really too close to call right now. They each have what, 3 starts left? I voted for Carpenter, but I could easily change my mind at season's end.

I understand the point. I will agree that Clemens' statistics are eye popping.

I still believe that there is some value to pitching effectively deep into games--it minimizes the use of the bullpen. Carpenter is of more value to the Cardinals in this regard. Intangibles also play a role--if Clemens can reverse his late season fade and if his pitching can contribute to the Astros getting into the playoffs, then those would be factors that cannot be ignored.

I've never said they were good innings, just that there is value, a Workhorse Factor if you will, in pitching extra innings that the bullpen does not have to pitch. And considering his team's record in all of the games he's pitched, it's not like Carpenter's extra innings have cost his team games. That 5.29 ERA over 34 innings, in relation to what it did for the bullpen, doesn't appear to me to be all that significant. I'll grant you the pure numbers argument, but you are completely discounting the real world benefit a starting pitcher who pitches into the 8th inning on average provides his team. That' basically my only point, since I have yet to see a counter to my argument.

In fact, given the way Tony LaRussa uses his bullpen, the extra 4 outs that Carpenter gets a game more than Clemens saves at least 3 Cardinal relievers from having that many more appearances... :D

Well, I'm not sure innings pitched can be taken by itself. If wins are being devalued in this discussion (because obviously 11 and 21 aren't anywhere close), and E.R.A. is clearly in Clemens' favor, then on the flip side, let's not ignore this comparison, either:

Carpenter has 7 complete games, 4 of them shutouts. Clemens has one and none.

That means six more times (or 20% of his starts) Carpenter has gone the distance. In this era of weak and overused bullpens, that's significant, and even moreso with LaRussa as your manager. Maybe we should poll the guys in the Houston pen to see which pitcher they'd like out there. ;)