Franchise is living up to his nickname.
I'm not a sabermetrician, at least I don't consider myself one. Actually, can someone tell me what the definition of one is? Thanks, that'd be great. Anyway, Jeff Passan recently
wrote an article about how young writers can influence this year's Cy Young voting by using statistics, and whatever else (I really need that definition), to claim that Webb is not the best. As one of his main points, he brings up the "win issue". Yet, he still shows what many lose sight of. It's not that sabermetricians, or anyone else, discounts wins totally. They are a good source of how a guy is doing. If I have a choice between a guy with a 18-4 record and one that is 9-10, then I pretty much know the 18-4 guy is clearly better. The problem comes when you're dissecting the cream of the crop. Out of the (16 x 5 = 80) pitchers that are in NL rotations (okay, there are actually more, but don't point that out), only about 3-5 are in the discussion. That's about 5% of the pitchers. When dissecting them, you can't look at wins because the difference isn't that great. While the difference between 18 and 9 is large, the difference between 16 and 19 is not. You can't say the 19 win pitcher is better because team factors can really influence those statistics. Let's look at Webb vs. Lincecum (I'm leaving CC out just to make this point, but I think he should be in consideration -- that's another debate):
Brandon Webb
19-7, 3.41 ERA, 197.2 IP, 166 K, 57 BB, 13 HR, 1.19 WHIP
Tim Lincecum
16-3, 2.54 ERA, 198.2 IP, 225 K, 74 BB, 10 HR, 1.18 WHIP
If you just look at the W-L record, then Webb seems to be the better pitcher. However, looking at just about everything else (except for walks), Lincecum has been better. In ERA alone, he's almost a run better. Obviously, Lincecum is the better pitcher. Most of the statistics are so far apart that you can take random umpires, fields, and defenses out of the equation. Again, records are useful, but they're the most basic form of comparison. They don't really tell you much. If the two players are within a couple wins and losses, then you have to dig deeper. If you have Harang (4-15) vs. Webb (19-7), then obviously Webb is better. But you can't necessarily say that about Lincecum and Webb. At the point of talking about the very best pitcher in the NL or AL, records are just not conclusive.
7 comments:
I agree that Lincecum might be the better pitcher this year, and as much as I love the saber stuff, even though I'm old school (following me so far), I think the people that discount wins aren't seeing the big picture.
Sure, a pitcher's win count is influenced by a lot of outside factors. He can't do it himself. But the most important stat in baseball is a simple one.
Wins. The more games your team wins, the better you're chance you have to make the playoffs. The more games you win in the playoffs, the better your chance to win it all.
It is all about wins. There is no other stat that really counts. The rest are tools that evaluate, while Wins is a stat that defines. And a pitcher who wins a lot of games helps his team total. Which leads to the overall success of the team.
Looking at all the numbers, Lincecum is probably better. But Webb with his wins has got his team closer to the playoffs than Lincecum and his fewer wins for a team that is going nowhere.
Which is more valuable. A pitcher with a low good ERA+ for a 70-win team, or a 20 game winnner for a team that is in the playoff chase.
One of the arguments will be that if you put each of them other's place, how would they be doing or their teams be doing. Doesn't matter, because that isn't reality. They are where they are. Hopefully, that's not too existential.
Something like expected wins might be appropriate, but the fact remains. No matter how good Lincecum is, he isn't taking the Giants anywhere. Webb has his team in the chase.
Same with the offense. The only stat that counts is runs. The team that scores the most wins. The team that wins the most (well, see above). So, runs. Who scores them and who drives them in. Unless a player hits a solo HR or steals home (minus PB's, WP, E's, etc), someone has to get him across. That's why RBI's are a better statistic than people will give credit for.
Yeah but is it Lincecum's fault that his team can't score enough for him? Is it his fault that he plays for the Giants? Looking at ERA and WHIP and K, Lincecum is the better pitcher. Who's the best pitcher should win the Cy Young, in much the same way that the best player should win the MVP (all regardless of how their teams perform). Lincecum is pitching a whole run better, and I think that should count for more than 3-4 wins.
I just can't agree with that. If you reverse their fortunes, it becomes even more clear to me.
If Lincecum was 3-16, the Giants are still a mediocre team trying to stay out of last place.
If Webb was 7-19, the DiamondBacks are out of contention and sure to go home after the season.
And you can blame a guys team. Its a team game. Its not the NBA, or the NFL, or soocer, where one guy can take over.
The reason I say is this is because the MVP should be what it is named for. The Most "Valuable" Player. The guy that does the most to help his team win. Because that's what its all about.
I agree that their should be a "much" larger emphasis on a Player of the Year award to reward the guy with the best season. But the MVP should be for the guy who does the most to give his team a chance to win.
As much as people complained about Pujols in 2006, he was right. He was the MVP. The Phillies didn't make the playoffs wiht him, and wouldn't have without. Whereas, do you think the Cardinals are taking home the trophy wihout Pujols in the lineup.
Just so I understand, by your thinnking, the Cy Young winner (who in your opinion, is the best pitcher) should never be eligible for the MVP, because what he does to win the award doesn't really have any effect on whether or not his team is successful. Its only an individual award, like a batting title?
Under that thinking, they way I see it, they should just change the name to the Player/Pitcher with the Best Stats Regardless of whether or not you have a chance at the Postseason award.
Just for the record, I haven't written off the Cards yet. But they're making it difficult to believe.
I meant to say the Phillies season didn't matter with or without Ryan Howard.
I say the Cy Young is the Pitcher of the Year Award, so I think there should be a Position Player of the Year Award, which could be the MVP (I'm almost thinking the Hank Aaron Award really counts for this because no one includes defense in the MVP voting anyway, but the Hank Aaron Award doesn't have the same "pizazz" as the MVP or the Cy Young). I said in an earlier post that I think starting pitchers are as valuable or more valuable than position players, and by that token, I would almost always want the pitcher to win the MVP.
As for the "valuable" part, I think we may have to agree to disagree. As for Pujols in '06, I want to remind you that the Phillies had a better record than the Cardinals, which indicates to me that Howard gave his team more of a chance to win. Pujols just happened to play in a weak division. By only taking teams in the playoffs, I think you're leaving out some really good players (ie. Berkman, Pujols, Webb, Lincecum, etc.) that should be considered. True, the Giants would still be bad, but they'd be much worse without Lincecum. I just think you're throwing out great seasons because they didn't get the team into the playoffs. Lincecum was great for a bad team, and Webb was great for a decent team. I just have to give the edge to Lincecum.
As for wins, I agree they shouldn't be discounted. They're the first thing to look at when narrowing down contestants. But when you're in the very top, wins become very vague. ERA, WHIP, and other stats become more specific. Honestly, there really isn't too much of a difference in talent between Lincecum and Webb, but that's what the other stats are for, to help you decide. A reliever could have blown a few for Lincecum, maybe more than Webb. I think wins are important, but I don't think they show who is the best pitcher when talking about such select company.
If the performance of Lincecum's team cant' be held against him, the division Pujols plays in can't be held against him.
A player has less input into the division he plays in than who his teammates are.
But if the Cy Young is going to be considered a Pitcher of the Year award, they need to go back and take the MVP away from Hernandez, Clemens, Eckersley, etc.
They shouldn't even be considered for that list.
How much input does a player have over his teammates? As far as I can tell, Lincecum was drafted by a team, developed by them, and now essentially has to play six years for them. No matter what.
On Pujols, I thought he deserved the MVP award because he had a better season. I don't have a problem thinking he should have gotten it. But the logic that he earned it by making the playoffs is faulty considering Howard's team was actually better.
I'm less argumentative over pitchers getting the MVP. I think they can, but it seems that there should be an award for the best position player (the Cy Young can only be won by pitchers). It's more of a wish instead of desire or want. If we could have a position player award (again, the Hank Aaron Award could be it, but no one cares who wins that one), then the MVP really could be the most "valuable" player award, opening it up to all comers. I'm not saying it shouldn't, but I think it would be fair to everyone to have a strictly position player award.
Post a Comment