Surprising, but well deserved!

Timmy!

What does Virtual Lincecum have to say about this?

What kind of dumbass could vote Javier Vazquez second? He should have his kidney taken away.

Just to get that out of the way.

But I thought pot heads could only sit on the couch and do nothing with their lives. Did those public service ads lie to me?

But I thought pot heads could only sit on the couch and do nothing with their lives. Did those public service ads lie to me?

Lincecum is a freak!

What kind of dumbass could vote Javier Vazquez second? He should have his kidney taken away.

Just to get that out of the way.

agreed. WTF? 15-10, 6th in era, 10th in era+, with only 219 ip? Not even the best pitcher on his own team.

I assume this means the BBWAA obsession with pitcher wins is officially over? Or does this only apply because there were no 20-game winners?

But I thought pot heads could only sit on the couch and do nothing with their lives. Did those public service ads lie to me?

He obviously started smoking pot after the season, and is now on the Steve Howe career path.

But I thought pot heads could only sit on the couch and do nothing with their lives. Did those public service ads lie to me?

Yes they did.

Legalize it!

To paraphrase the Kingston Trio's "Scotch And Soda," give him love and baby, he feels high.

Vazquez did lead the NL in xFIP.

Larussa:
"Damn Hippy"

From the Link in #10

"Time and time again, DEA tests have shown that no feeling you could get from drugs could be better than the great feeling you get from being a winner,"

Then the DEA has been conducting tests with the wrong stuff.

c'est chic!

split vote in saint louie

Or does this only apply because there were no 20-game winners?

for now, you have to think that's true.

wake me up when a guy who wins 23 games but puts up 3.75/1.315/120 numbers gets beaten out by a guy who goes 17-9 but puts up a 2.40/1.105/160

Vazquez was close to Carpenter in BB/9, K/BB ratio, WHIP, etc., with significantly more innings pitched. He was second on Fangraphs' value rankings, had the second-most strikeouts, the fifth-most innings pitched I don't see what's so preposterous that he got one vote.

Vazquez did lead the NL in xFIP.

There are a surprising (to me at least) number of people who think that tells you more about how a pitcher pitched this year than runs allowed, ERA+, or such stats. I'm not in that camp, I prefer some sort of context adjusted measure of run prevention when determining how well someone performed in the past (and different measures for projecitons), but there are actually quite a few people who believe Ricky Nolasco had a great season in 2009, instead of a crappy year with great peripherals.

Then the DEA has been conducting tests with the wrong stuff.

Dude, who's going to sell the DEA real drugs?

Waingwright and Carpenter: The best vote splitters since George Bush Senior and Ross Perot.....or would that be Al Gore and Ralph Nader ?

wake me up when a guy who wins 23 games but puts up 3.75/1.315/120 numbers gets beaten out by a guy who goes 17-9 but puts up a 2.40/1.105/160

Not quite the same, but last year Brandon Webb went 22-7 with a 3.30 ERA, 1.20 WHIP and 183 K's and got beat by Tim Lincecum who went 18-5, 2.62 ERA, 1.17 WHIP, 265 K's.

I wonder if the pitcher receiving the most 1st-place votes ever finished as low as third before...

Vazquez did lead the NL in xFIP.

god, when can the madness end. I'm fine with using xFip for predicting future performance if a player gets traded or defense changes or whatever, but it's beyond useless as a measurement of past performance, which is what an award should be about.

There are a surprising (to me at least) number of people who think that tells you more about how a pitcher pitched this year than runs allowed, ERA+, or such stats. I'm not in that camp, I prefer some sort of context adjusted measure of run prevention when determining how well someone performed in the past (and different measures for projecitons), but there are actually quite a few people who believe Ricky Nolasco had a great season in 2009, instead of a crappy year with great peripherals.

But isn't that the logical extension of giving a guy credit for what he himself did, and not penalizing him for what he had no control over? How is it different than ignoring W-L?

What kind of dumbass could vote Javier Vazquez second? He should have his kidney taken away.

Keith Law, apparently.

What kind of dumbass could vote Javier Vazquez second? He should have his kidney taken away.


Keith Law, apparently.

Who gets Keith Law's kidney? Who we give it to?

Keith Law, apparently.

he should have his BBWAA card taken away from him

wake me up when a guy who wins 23 games but puts up 3.75/1.315/120 numbers gets beaten out by a guy who goes 17-9 but puts up a 2.40/1.105/160

Didn't this already happen a decade ago? In '99, the Big Unit (17-9, 2.48) beat out Hampton (22-4, 2.90).

Do you have a cite that it was Law? I can't find his testimony (but I don't have Insider), and the closest I could find was Neyer nominating "whoever" voted for Vazquez for sainthood in the paragraph after he mentioned Law's vote.

Is the Associated Press good enough?

But isn't that the logical extension of giving a guy credit for what he himself did, and not penalizing him for what he had no control over? How is it different than ignoring W-L?

Please don't tell me you think a pitcher has zero control over hits on balls in play. The defense has a lot of control, but just about every study since Voros looked at knuckleballers has shown that the pitcher has some effect.

Some pitchers handle runners on base better than others. Tom Glavine (among others)consistently allowed fewer baserunners than his hits and walks would predict.

Pickoffs and controlling the running game. Andy Pettitte and Mark Beuhrle have a lot of control over this, taking 10 or so runners a year off base that now have no chance to score. This affects their ERA. But not their FIP or xFIP.

Aha, thanks. I was searching on ESPN itself and then used Google Blogsearch.

But isn't that the logical extension of giving a guy credit for what he himself did, and not penalizing him for what he had no control over? How is it different than ignoring W-L?

it's logical if the methods of measuring were 100% accurate and certainty was a sure thing, but of course these measurements are hardly considered to be accurate, and of course there is the possibility/probability that a team with a good defense would rather have it's pitchers utilize the defense so the strategy is to pitch to the defense instead of working the pitcher into deeper counts, taxing him earlier than necessary.

xFip could argue that a pitcher who threw a shutout actually in theory would have allowed 2 runs in that game. So it's assigning theoretical results to reality. W/L is assigning a team stat(wins) to an individual. That is the difference. Of course the argument is that runs allowed is a team stat, and that is fine and dandy, but at least you aren't creating non-existent numbers(runs) and assigning them to a player.

god, when can the madness end. I'm fine with using xFip for predicting future performance if a player gets traded or defense changes or whatever, but it's beyond useless as a measurement of past performance, which is what an award should be about.

Sez you. I'm getting sick of people asserting this as if it's self-evident. When can the madness end.

Do you have a cite that it was Law? I can't find his testimony (but I don't have Insider), and the closest I could find was Neyer nominating "whoever" voted for Vazquez for sainthood in the paragraph after he mentioned Law's vote.

sainthood? Wow, Rob is really losing it. It's comments like that, which make people think that stat oriented people live in a vacuum. Vazquez shouldn't be on anybodys three person ballot. Voting for Vazquez is about as ridiculous as voting for Howard for MVP.

Keith, you got some 'splainin to do...

Vazquez finished 2nd in FIP and K, 1st in K/BB. I don't know that I would've put him 2nd myself, but I appreciate that somebody did.

Sez you. I'm getting sick of people asserting this as if it's self-evident. When can the madness end.
??? I don't get this, what is this supposed to mean?

it's an award, it's a seasonal award for 2009, why does it make sense to award the award based upon theory than on reality?

Didn't this already happen a decade ago? In '99, the Big Unit (17-9, 2.48) beat out Hampton (22-4, 2.90).

2.90 is still pretty good, and let's not forget, randy johnson had 364 ks that year, which was the 15th best season of all-time and 5th best after 1900.

i'm thinking more like 2002 (although zito's 2.75/1.134/158 isn't that bad - just doesn't measure up to pedro's 2.26/0.923/202 (all ML-leading), and pedro did have 20 wins), or 2005 where colon's 21-8 but 3.48/1.159/122 was enough to beat out santana's 16-7/2.87/0.971/AL-leading 155)

the best example of it actually happening was the 2004 NL Cy, when Clemens' 18-4/2.98 beat out RJ's 16-14/2.60/ML-leading 0.900/NL-leading 177 and Oswalt's 20-10/3.49/1.245/125

xFip could argue that a pitcher who threw a shutout actually in theory would have allowed 2 runs in that game. So it's assigning theoretical results to reality. W/L is assigning a team stat(wins) to an individual. That is the difference. Of course the argument is that runs allowed is a team stat, and that is fine and dandy, but at least you aren't creating non-existent numbers(runs) and assigning them to a player.

It's imperfect. And it's certainly not a be-all, end-all or anything. But it's not "beyond useless", either.

Neither Law nor Carroll had Carpenter top 3. Weird.

Even if you take Carroll's vote for Haren and Law's for Vazquez and give both to Carpenter, who was left off their ballots, the order of finish is still the same.

#33: Fine, and those are really good reasons not to blindly vote by FIP/xFIP. But merely attempting to adjust those stats for the factors you describe would not be nearly the same thing as dismissing them as "only predictive." Right?

To put it more concretely, I'm sure that knocking Nolasco's BABIP from .336 down to his higher-than-average career .316, and adjusting for whatever weaknesses he has with men on or with the running game (is he even weak in these areas? I have no clue...), would nonetheless leave him looking a helluva lot better than "third worst ERA in the league" does.

i'm thinking more like 2002 (although zito's 2.75/1.134/158 isn't that bad - just doesn't measure up to pedro's 2.26/0.923/202 (all ML-leading),

Do we have to go into this again? Pedro gave up a bunch of UER and trailed a bunch in innings. By most advanced value metrics, Zito actually was better. The guy who got jobbed was Lowe, who was better than both.

AROM, would you use PZR data--if it were available--in a CYA discussion?

It sucks to assume every BIP has the same value (FIP), but it also sucks to assume that every pitcher got equal defensive support.

Carpenter is insanely good at holding baserunners which doesn't go into FIP at all and so that underrates him.

Neither Law nor Carroll had Carpenter top 3. Weird.

Yeah. Not a good debut for the internet writers. The 30 dead tree writers all managed to not screw up.

It's imperfect. And it's certainly not a be-all, end-all or anything. But it's not "beyond useless", either.

it's on par with RBI's as a tool for voting for MVP. It's pretty much useless as a serious tool for an award vote like Cy Young, in fact I would argue that RBI is a better stat in this case(and RBI is nearly useless also)

it's not just imperfect, it is perfectly useless as a tool for evaluating how good of a season a pitcher had for an award. It doesn't measure anything, it's a completly theoretical model that is pretending to be measuring actual performance and it fails miserably because once again it doesn't care one whit about actual results. At no point should theoretical models be used to vote for an award, it's silly. when a system could look at a pitcher that threw a shutout no hitter, that in theory, he would have allowed two runs based upon the number of balls he put in play and walks allowed, therefore he should be assigned a penalty, then it's just a ridiculous stat for being useful for an award vote.

I for the life of me, can't figure out how smart people can get sucked into this fip scam, it's like the fascination of wpa from a few years ago or rbis by the mainstream, people keep wanting to use these stats in the wrong ways.

Back on Oct. 2, Wainwright left the Cardinals' game against Milwaukee with a 6-1 lead in the seventh. Milwaukee came back to win, depriving Wainwright of a 20th victory.

Given the cachet of 20 wins, it's likely that Wainwright lost the Cy Young after he had thrown his final pitch of the (regular) season.

Yeah. Not a good debut for the internet writers. The 30 dead tree writers all managed to not screw up.

Sometimes I think those two just like being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

In his blog explanation Keith Law gave extra "credit" to Vazquez for pitching in the NL East.

Isn't it two writers per team? Where do Law and Carroll fit in?

Carroll says he votes for Cincinnati.

But I thought pot heads could only sit on the couch and do nothing with their lives.

Most pot heads haven't been able to find a job that requires 3 hours of work every fifth day.

Isn't it two writers per team? Where do Law and Carroll fit in?

I think, as papers disappear/more papers don't allow writers to vote, the BBWAA has to dip into the national pool to represent various cities in awards voting.

lol. Keith Law's wiki has already been vandalized. Carpenter wouldn't have won even if both writers had voted them in the position they put Vazquez and Haren.

I'd use FIP some.

No complaining. I realize it's a staple of BTF, but this one has been gotten completely right. And, for the first time ever, there really seems to be a shift in how Cy Youngs are being awarded. Yes, there was no 20-game winner to muddy the waters. But who was the last 15-game winner to win the award?

This is the start of a shift towards more-intelligent voting.

In his blog explanation Keith Law gave extra "credit" to Vazquez for pitching in the NL East.

Only Delta Airlines understands Law's fear.

In his blog explanation Keith Law gave extra "credit" to Vazquez for pitching in the NL East.

you have got to be kidding me. Is this like the Halladay argument over Greinke that was pretty quickly debunked?

How much extra credit do you have to give for him to move him past Lincecum, Wainwright or Carpenter? Heck baseball-prospectus keeps track of the opponents quality and the .731(.254/.328/.403) ops that Vazquez faced doesn't really seem to be that much of a difference than the .721(.252/.326/.395) that Carpenter and .724(.251/.328/.396) Lincecum faced. And of course Wainwrights was a tad harder than Vazquez (.255/.330/.403/.733 )

This is the start of a shift towards more-intelligent voting.

Funny, you'd think that would be something we'd be happy about, rather than seeking out trivial injustices to rail about (and in case you drop by Keith, Post 3 wasn't intended to be taken seriously).

No complaining. I realize it's a staple of BTF, but this one has been gotten completely right. And, for the first time ever, there really seems to be a shift in how Cy Youngs are being awarded. Yes, there was no 20-game winner to muddy the waters. But who was the last 15-game winner to win the award?

This is the start of a shift towards more-intelligent voting.

agreed about the shift, the only problem is that the two new smart guys are the only ones to screw this up.

It wasn't the wins. BBWAA are not changing, as Rob N postulates today on ESPN. Writers still like lead-leading things, like ShO, CG, KOs.

I don't think the writers would have made a mistake by choosing Wainwright. More innings than The Freak, over 200 K, comparable ERA, etc.

agreed about the shift, the only problem is that the two new smart guys are the only ones to screw this up.

What was screwed up again?

Carroll said that his models show that Lincecum and Wainwright actually spent the season on the DL.

I don't get the huge deal with Keith's ballot. He didn't like Carpenter's innings, and Vazquez had numbers as good or better than Wainwright (a bit worse ERA, but more K's, fewer BB's, better in terms of triple slash numbers against).

I've got my own Cy predictor which at least this year worked better than Neyer/James or 'writers will vote for best W-L' mantra.

I don't get the huge deal with Keith's ballot. He didn't like Carpenter's innings, and Vazquez had numbers as good or better than Wainwright (a bit worse ERA, but more K's, fewer BB's, better in terms of triple slash numbers against).

Everything went basically right, but, we still need something to complain about, so, Klaw it is!

According to fangraphs' analysis, which incorporates WAR and RAR, Lincecum deserved the Cy Young and Javier Vazquez deserved second place. Not one Cardinal pitcher in that metric belonged in the top 3, but 3 Redbirds were in the top 10 in the NL:

Tim Lincecum Giants $37.00
Javier Vazquez Braves $29.50
Dan Haren Diamondbacks $27.50
Adam Wainwright Cardinals $25.60
Ubaldo Jimenez Rockies $25.50
Chris Carpenter Cardinals $25.10
Josh Johnson Marlins $24.60
Joel Pineiro Cardinals $21.50
Clayton Kershaw Dodgers $18.90
Ricky Nolasco Marlins $18.70

Here is the same metric for the American League (aka The Major League):

Zack Greinke Royals $42.40
Justin Verlander Tigers $37.10
Roy Halladay Blue Jays $33.00
Felix Hernandez Mariners $31.20
Jon Lester Red Sox $28.10
CC Sabathia Yankees $27.00
Josh Beckett Red Sox $23.90
Gavin Floyd White Sox $20.40
Cliff Lee Indians $18.70
James Shields Rays $18.30

I don't get the huge deal with Keith's ballot. He didn't like Carpenter's innings, and Vazquez had numbers as good or better than Wainwright (a bit worse ERA, but more K's, fewer BB's, better in terms of triple slash numbers against).

I just don't see it, and the only argument I've ever seen for Vazquez over Wainwright has been the silly fip argument. Wainwright had more innings pitched, significantly better era, and if Law was being accurate that he gave extra credit to Vazquez because of the division, well Wainwright technically faced better hitters according to baseball prospectus. (miniscule difference I'll give you that)

If you argue the innings make the difference between Vazquez and Carpenter(27ips) when Carpenter rates were better in most instances, then I don't see how the 14 innings difference allows Vazquez to leap frog over Wainwright.

According to fangraphs' analysis, which incorporates WAR and RAR, Lincecum deserved the Cy Young and Javier Vazquez deserved second place. Not one Cardinal pitcher in that metric belonged in the top 3, but 3 Redbirds were in the top 10 in the NL:

and fangraphs relies on the silliness that is FIP, so of course their metric is going to go Vazquez, after all it's their silliness that is causing some of the problem.

when a system could look at a pitcher that threw a shutout no hitter, that in theory, he would have allowed two runs based upon the number of balls he put in play and walks allowed, therefore he should be assigned a penalty, then it's just a ridiculous stat for being useful for an award vote.

But, barring an identifiable individual tendency to be able to do that consistently, then the fact that that performance led to two runs rather than zero wasn't an individual accomplishment of the pitcher.

Again, this seems to be an argument for starting with FIP/xFIP (or whatever other "more advanced" pitching stats you like), and adjusting it for the things they don't account for. It doesn't seem like a viable argument for throwing out the "more advanced" stats as "predictive" and going by ERA instead.

I just don't see it, and the only argument I've ever seen for Vazquez over Wainwright has been the silly fip argument. Wainwright had more innings pitched, significantly better era

2.63 to 2.87 is not a huge gap. Meanwhile, as I noted, Vazquez allowed lesser triple slash numbers against, more K's, fewer walks.

If you argue the innings make the difference between Vazquez and Carpenter(27ips) when Carpenter rates were better in most instances, then I don't see how the 14 innings difference allows Vazquez to leap frog over Wainwright.

I agree, this is a slight inconsistency, although Keith would probably argue that Vazquez pitched a "full season" while Carpenter did not, such that the gap between Carpenter and Vazquez is significant while the smaller gap between Vazquez and Wainwright is less significant.

Ricky Nolasco Marlins $18.70

AHEMAHEMAHEM*coughcough*BetterthanMaine*cough*

But, barring an identifiable individual tendency to be able to do that consistently,

You mean like Vazquez's identifiable tendency to be significantly worse than his FIP or DIPS every year? If there's one pitcher in baseball you shouldn't use FIP on, he's the guy.

You mean like Vazquez's identifiable tendency to be significantly worse than his FIP or DIPS every year?

Yeah, I do agree with that point.

But, barring an identifiable individual tendency to be able to do that consistently, then the fact that that performance led to two runs rather than zero wasn't an individual accomplishment of the pitcher.

Again, this seems to be an argument for starting with FIP/xFIP (or whatever other "more advanced" pitching stats you like), and adjusting it for the things they don't account for. It doesn't seem like a viable argument for throwing out the "more advanced" stats as "predictive" and going by ERA instead.

it's a predictive stat, if the player would have pitched exactly the same way for a team which is completly average on defense, and assumes that the pitcher has no control over a wide variety of stuff. XFip does a better job in that it at least considers type of hit ball. But fip is a crappy stat from the get go, that it needs so much work to be remotely useful or accurate. (HR*13+(BB+HBP-IBB)*3-K*2)/IP ----- no acknowledgement of flyball vs groundball, handedness, type of pitcher, etc. It's a crappy stat that is the first step onto creating a decent stat, but as is, there is no value inherent in this stat as is that should make it valuable as any type of metric to use in an award vote.


as mentioned, pitchers do pitch differently with men on base, but this stat doesn't acknowledge it. Pitchers have different level of skills at holding runners, pitchers pitch to the strength of their team, yet this stat wants to put everyone in a vacuum, but makes the assumption that in this vacuum the pitcher wouldn't have pitched any differently than he did during the season. In this theoretical vacuum where strikeouts are more valuable than in the real world with a good defense behind you, how would the different pitchers pitched? It's a theoretical world which doesn't acknowledge that the pitchers aren't pitching in the theoretical world. It's a massively flawed stat that shouldn't be used for awarding a performance award.

Vazquez also was a more valuable hitter. None of them were Silver Slugger-worthy or anything like that, but he did lead the league in sacrifice hits, for whatever that's worth. (Probably very little, but maybe it warrants at least a mention.)

and fangraphs relies on the silliness that is FIP,

Why is so silly to rely on a measure that attempts to evaluate performance by the pitcher's core performance (walks, strikeouts, and home runs allowed)? You're using the term "theoretical" in a derisive fashion but I don't have a problem with using a quantitative measure based on performance factors deemed controllable by a pitcher.

AHEMAHEMAHEM*coughcough*BetterthanMaine*cough*

Fangraphs is a great site but basing its WAR for pitchers on FIP is crazy. Nolasco but up some pretty peripherals and there's plenty of reason to think he'll be better than Maine next season. But to say that a guy with a 5+ ERA in 185 IP was the 10th best pitcher in the NL is ridiculous.

From TFA:

The only other time a pitcher won the Cy Young Award without the most first-place votes was in 1998 when the Atlanta Braves’ Tom Glavine had 11 to San Diego Padres reliever Trevor Hoffman’s 13 but out-pointed him overall, 98-88.

"Out-pointed"? I believe they word they are looking for is "outscored." Who writes these press releases?

Why is so silly to rely on a measure to attempts to evaluate performance by the pitcher's core performance (walks, strikeouts, and home runs allowed)? You're using the term "theoretical" in a derisive fashion but I don't have a problem with using a quantitative measure based on performance factors deemed controllable by a pitcher.

Nothing wrong with trying to evaluate a pitcher based upon his core performance, when you are trying to figure out how that pitcher might work in a different environment. Of course as mentioned FIP doesn't even account for types of pitchers so it's already inaccurate based upon it's first assumption, which is that the only things a pitcher has control over is walks, homeruns and strikeouts. It assumes that flyballs and groundballs are equal which they are not, it assumes type of pitching style is equal, which they are not, it assumes that pitchers don't change their strategies based upon defense behind them or runners on base, again something that isn't true.

I am using the word theoretical in a derisive fashion, because here it's being used to try and guess what would have happened instead of looking at what did happen. It would be like giving the homerun title to a player by saying his homeruns per at bat is best in the league, but he only had 200 at bats, so we'll just extrapolate on out how many homeruns he would have had if he had 500 at bats (while ignoring that he was a right handed batter who faced lefties 170 times)

Vazquez also was a more valuable hitter. None of them were Silver Slugger-worthy or anything like that, but he did lead the league in sacrifice hits, for whatever that's worth. (Probably very little, but maybe it warrants at least a mention.)

I don't think a pitcher's hitting should have any bearing on the Cy Young voting, any more than their pitching should affect who wins the Silver Slugger. For the MVP and ROY votes, sure, add in their offense. (Anyway, both Wainwright and Carpenter had a higher OPS than Vazquez.)

Vazquez also was a more valuable hitter. None of them were Silver Slugger-worthy or anything like that, but he did lead the league in sacrifice hits, for whatever that's worth. (Probably very little, but maybe it warrants at least a mention.)

than Wainwright? I doubt that.(not the sacrifice hits mind you, but the better batter thing) and Wainwright did (undeservedly in my opinion as Pineiro was a much better fielder, did win the gold glove)

I am using the word theoretical in a derisive fashion, because here it's being used to try and guess what would have happened instead of looking at what did happen.

When "what did happen" is based on a team dependent measure, then I would rather look at a metric that at least attempts to eliminate that factor. But certainly the flaws you mention about fip are fair enough.

I don't think a pitcher's hitting should have any bearing on the Cy Young voting, any more than their pitching should affect who wins the Silver Slugger. For the MVP and ROY votes, sure, add in their offense.

I wouldn't vote based on that myself, either, but I could understand if someone wanted to factor it in based on the idea that it comes with the territory of being a National League pitcher.

Anyway, looking back over the stats it appears that Vazquez doesn't have much of a case here, either, outside of sacrifice hits, but even if they did somehow put him over the top in this admittedly meaningless category it wouldn't be by much.

...wake me up when a guy who wins 23 games but puts up 3.75/1.315/120 numbers gets beaten out by a guy who goes 17-9 but puts up a 2.40/1.105/160

It's not a perfect fit but 1973 wasn't too far off.

Tom Seaver won the Cy Young Award with a line of 19-10/3.20/0.976/175. Ron Bryant finished third with 24-12/3.53/1.315/109.

I wouldn't say it was because the voters read between the lines, though. It was probably because famous Tom Terrific was the guy with the stellar stats and 19 wins while a no-name was the guy with the pedestrian stats and 24 wins. If their stats were swapped, Seaver may still have won the award.

Tom Seaver won the Cy Young Award with a line of 19-10/3.20/0.976/175. Ron Bryant finished third with 24-12/3.53/1.315/109.

Ok, I had to look it up because those ERA and ERA+ numbers look wrong 3.20 ERA = 175 ERA+ while 3.53 ERA = 109 ERA+. You have Seaver's ERA from '74 there, in '73 he had a 2.08.

When "what did happen" is based on a team dependent measure, then I would rather look at a metric that at least attempts to eliminate that factor. But certainly the flaws you mention about fip are fair enough.

for awarding an award? I just don't see that as being reasonable. Especially for pitchers. I will rail on the use of wins for a pitcher for the same reason, it's a theoretical stat (saying a pitcher is responsible for a win is the same to me as fip) one stat over penalizes the player for his teams contributions, while the other ignores team contributions, both are wrong tools to use in the awarding of a past season award.

I have no problem if a metric came out that did eliminate that team factor, provided it also eliminated the situational factors that may have led to the periphereal numbers. Many of the better successful pitchers have been shown to have a better than expected performance with runners on base (lower walk percentage, lower opponent slugging percentage that type of thing) and that is something that has been shown to be a repeateable skill in their case, but is ignored by fip and others because they don't fit into the formula, but you are voting on an award where these skills matter immensely.

Actual results matter, any system that will assign extra runs to a pitcher because of a formula, should not be used in any award evaluation. If you want to come up with a system that says his defense saved X number of runs for him (and is based upon actual uzr or other stats based upon actal results then I'm fine with that, but fip doesn't even pretend to do that, it just says that an average major league pitcher with these number of walks, homeruns and strikeouts would allow this many runs per 9 innings. No looking at what actually happened in the slightest.)

Russlan missed the joke.

You mean like Vazquez's identifiable tendency to be significantly worse than his FIP or DIPS every year?

In Vazquez's case in 2009, he had a very high 23.9% line drive rate. So he does well in FIP, but much worse in stats like tRA, which break down batted balls into GB, LD, and FBs.

for awarding an award? I just don't see that as being reasonable.

Yeah, and I think it's completely reasonable to give an award based solely on individual performance while attempting to eliminate team dependent performance.

This whole thing would be a lot more convincing if evidence were shown that Carpenter/Wainwright were more proficient in these "things FIP/xFIP doesn't measure" than Lincecum is. (I'm sure Lincecum's expected BABIP is miserable, the guy just has no stuff at all ;-) Apparently Carpenter holds runners well, but that's the only concrete claim I've seen made here.

This whole thing would be a lot more convincing if evidence were shown that Carpenter/Wainwright were more proficient in these "things FIP/xFIP doesn't measure" than Lincecum is. (I'm sure Lincecum's expected BABIP is miserable, the guy just has no stuff at all ;-) Apparently Carpenter holds runners well, but that's the only concrete claim I've seen made here

uh, I think everyone's talking about Law's inclusion of Vazquez on his ballot.

#91 - You're right, Mr. Jones. Thanks for catching that.

I dunno, I'm not :) I'm talking about the general principle of using advanced stats in postseason awards deliberation. (And I'm willing to cede Vazquez as a guy whom it can be shown is consistently overrated by FIP/xFIP.)

I'm talking about the general principle of using advanced stats in postseason awards deliberation.

Only so far as you trust the advanced stat to do what it says it does. It says it eliminates team dependent results. But if you don't think it's good at doing that, or doesn't properly account for everything the pitcher does, then just because it's new or "advanced" doesn't make it good. It seems to me a lot of the crap FIP gets is that (some) people don't think it does what it's designed to do well.