+- Sons of Ivy (https://sonsofivy.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Chicago Cubs (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Friendly Confines (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: Stat geeks cost the Cards a Cy (/thread-6072.html)
Stat geeks cost the Cards a Cy - kbwsb - 11-19-2009
By Rob Neyer
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Let's dig into the Cy Young balloting, shall we?
Two voters, Will Carroll of Baseball Prospectus and Keith Law of ESPN.com, did not include Chris Carpenter on their ballots. Carroll had Wainwright in the top spot, Tim Lincecum second and Arizona's Dan Haren third. Law voted for Lincecum, Atlanta's Javier Vazquez and Wainwright in third. Those were the only votes in any position for Haren and Vazquez.
The six-point gap between Lincecum and Carpenter is tied for the third-closest in the NL since the ballot expanded to three pitchers in 1970. The 10-point margin from first to third is the second closest for the NL ballot.
Neither Carroll nor Law alone cost Carpenter or Wainwright anything.
There were 32 voters, each asked to list their top three candidates. A first choice gets five points, a second choice three points, a third choice one point. If you retabulate the voting results, but without Carroll, the results are exactly the same: Lincecum-Carpenter-Wainwright. If you retabulate without Law, again the same: Lincecum-Carpenter-Wainwright. Unless the voting is exceptionally close, even closer than this time, one voter cannot change the results.
That said, it's true that the two non-traditional -- that is, non-newspaper -- voters did essentially swing the results. If you refigure the voting without Carroll and Law, Carpenter wins:
1. Carpenter (94)
2. Lincecum (92)
3. Wainwright (84)
With, by the way, nobody else figuring in the voting. Aside from Carroll and Law, every ballot was filled with only three names.*
*St. Louis writer Jeff Gordon argues that Wainwright got "jobbed." And further, "Carpenter was left off two ballots, with Javier Vasquez and Danny Haren presumably getting some local love. If Carpenter made those two ballots, he could have won the award. So you can expect those two voters to face heavy questioning in the days ahead."
Will and Keith may face heavy questioning, but Gordon's math here is wrong. Even if both had listed Carpenter third on their ballots, he still would have finished four points behind Lincecum.
On the other hand, purely in terms of performance -- rather than precedent -- it's very difficult to make the case that a vote for Vazquez or Haren is somehow crazy. Vazquez's ERA was little different from Wainwright's, but he was one of only two National Leaguers with a strikeout-to-walk ratio higher than 5-to-1.
The other was Haren, who led the league in that category.
I'm not going to run through every basic statistic (and yes, K/BB is a basic statistic), nor will I run through every advanced metric. I will say that according to FanGraphs, the most valuable pitcher in the league was Lincecum, the second most valuable was Vazquez, and the third most valuable was Haren.
Which isn't necessarily how I would have voted. Value-wise -- as theoretically measured by dollars -- there's virtually no difference between Haren, Wainwright, Carpenter, or (gulp) Ubaldo Jimenez and Josh Johnson. My point is that among the five candidates who wound up on at least one voter's ballot, only Lincecum's fundamental performance truly stands out.
There's something to be said for Conventional Wisdom. In this case, the Conventional Wisdom was unanimous: the three best pitchers in the league were Lincecum, Carpenter, and Wainwright. But in a field as traditionally conservative as award voting, isn't it healthy to allow room for just a bit of unconventional wisdom, too?
Carroll and Law didn't do anything crazy. They looked at the same numbers available to everyone else, and came up with slightly different answers. They should not be reviled for this. They should instead be applauded. And yes, even in St. Louis, where a bit more unconventional wisdom in 1987 would have given Ozzie Smith the MVP Award he deserved.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Over the Hawk? Bullshit! [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img]
Stat geeks cost the Cards a Cy - Butcher - 11-19-2009
I owe Keith Law a steak dinner.
Stat geeks cost the Cards a Cy - ruby23 - 11-19-2009
Carpenter should have won.
Stat geeks cost the Cards a Cy - veryzer - 11-19-2009
Ozzie Smith deserved the award? I mean, he had a good year and i get the argument that a player on a last place team shouldn't win it, but the fact of matter is, there was no clear winner that year. that's why dawson won it. he was the best player in the league. jack clark was the runaway winner if he didn't get hurt.
Stat geeks cost the Cards a Cy - kbwsb - 11-19-2009
<!--quoteo(post=69657:date=Nov 19 2009, 05:02 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Nov 19 2009, 05:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Ozzie Smith deserved the award? I mean, he had a good year and i get the argument that a player on a last place team shouldn't win it, but the fact of matter is, there was no clear winner that year. that's why dawson won it. he was the best player in the league. jack clark was the runaway winner if he didn't get hurt.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dawson led the league in homers and RBI, and in those days, that pretty much guaranteed you the MVP. The fact that his OBP was actually <i>below</i> league-average (hard to believe) perhaps means that he wasn't quite as "valuable" as we thought at the time.
Fuck it though, I loved the Hawk.
Stat geeks cost the Cards a Cy - Butcher - 11-19-2009
Dale Murphy actually got jobbed that season. I'm not saying he should have won it, but he ended up 11th in voting. His power stats were basically equal to Dawson's and his OBP was nearly 100 points higher.
And yes -- if Clark had 200 more ABs that season, he would have run away with the award.
Stat geeks cost the Cards a Cy - kbwsb - 11-19-2009
Like tom pointed out, their wasn't a clear front-runner that year, which was why Hawk snuck in there. The fact that Murphy finished 11th in the voting supports that; there really were 10+ possible candidates, and the only one who really stood out from the pack (Clark) missed a whole lot of games to injury.
Ozzie Smith's <i>fielding</i> was out of this world, but Dawson and Murphy were Gold Glovers too, if I recall.
Stat geeks cost the Cards a Cy - kbwsb - 11-20-2009
I've been on a lot of different baseball sites today, and MAN, you cannot believe the gnashing of teeth, whining, and outright crybabying of Cardinal fans all over the interweb. It's fucking beautiful.
From a Keith Law twitter: Do they sell a pacifier with the Cardinals logo on it?
Stat geeks cost the Cards a Cy - ruby23 - 11-20-2009
Carpenter should have won.
Stat geeks cost the Cards a Cy - kbwsb - 11-20-2009
<!--quoteo(post=69708:date=Nov 19 2009, 10:37 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Nov 19 2009, 10:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Carpenter should have won.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Had he have won, I certainly wouldn't have complained. He was outstanding, when he pitched. I think what hurt him was that he missed a month. That's a lot of time to miss.
Also, he was unlucky in that the 3rd best pitcher in the league was his teammate, so it was inevitable that they would split a lot of votes.
I actually expected Wainwright to win it, but I have no problem with Lincecum. It was a really tight 5-man race, which is pretty rare (although I think the top 3 were definitely Bob Marley and the 2 Cards).
Stat geeks cost the Cards a Cy - VanSlawAndCottoCheese - 11-20-2009
<!--quoteo(post=69708:date=Nov 19 2009, 11:37 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Nov 19 2009, 11:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Carpenter should have won.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Carpenter's only just begun.
Stat geeks cost the Cards a Cy - kbwsb - 11-20-2009
It was a Rainy Day and Monday for Carpenter.
Stat geeks cost the Cards a Cy - bz - 11-20-2009
Fuck
Yea!
Stat geeks cost the Cards a Cy - Coach - 11-20-2009
Wainwright should have won
Stat geeks cost the Cards a Cy - Bricklayer - 11-20-2009
<!--quoteo(post=69719:date=Nov 20 2009, 02:41 AM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Nov 20 2009, 02:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It was a Rainy Day and Monday for Carpenter.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If he did win he would have been on Top of the World.