Good.

Yay.

The first place vote for Verlander is a joke.

Verlander's ERA was 3.45.

Hooray! Surprised that Felix was left off 2 ballots, I was worried he might nose out Greinke, and wouldn't have been too terribly upset if he did.

Wow. That was actually the best choice.

He was the only pitcher named on all ballots.

Did somebody leave out Felix? That's odd.

Ahh, a BTF tradition: If the writers get it right, then it's time to carp about down-ballot injustices.

I guess the guaranteed screwing Zack was going to get didn't really materialize.

I wonder if he's going to Chipotle to celebrate...

Did somebody leave out Felix? That's odd.

Someone probably voted.

1) Verlander
2) Greinke
3) Sabathia

Probably someone from Detroit.

I wonder if he's going to Chipotle to celebrate...

Personally, I'd go to Pizza Hut.

Did somebody leave out Felix?

Two people, actually.

-- MWE

Ahh, a BTF tradition: If the writers get it right, then it's time to carp about down-ballot injustices.

Leaving Felix Hernandez off of your ballot should be grounds to lose your vote.

And voting for Verlander 1st is pretty close to that, too.

I can actually see a justification for Verlander. Lots of innings, lots of strike outs. He was the Hoss of the AL this year. I would have had him 3rd after Greinke and Felix.

It seems like we spend four months shitting on the writers because they are guaranteed to #### up, and then they get it right again. Was there every any doubt that he'd win? No.

The internet breathes a sigh of relief.

And then devours Justin Verlander in a fit of secondary rage.

And voting for Verlander 1st is pretty close to that, too.

It's not that bad. 19 Ws, 6th in the league in ERA, 1st in Ks and IP.

Maybe the writer is a DIPS guy, 2.80 FIP :-)

And voting for Verlander 1st is pretty close to that, too.

Eh, he had a heckuva lot more punch outs than anybody else. I guess you could argue he powered his team to a near playoff spot.

Edit: Sorry shooty, snapper.

It seems like we spend four months shitting on the writers because they are guaranteed to #### up, and then they get it right again. Was there every any doubt that he'd win? No.

Hey, we've still got a few days left to be outraged at the screwing Joe Mauer is going to get by the dumbass writers. Don't spoil the fun.

The internet breathes a sigh of relief.

And then devours Justin Verlander in a fit of secondary rage.

If there's anything the intrnet hates more than a obviously bad decision is a good, non-controversial one. Creates a vacuum, and nature abhors a vacuum.

Maybe the writer is a DIPS guys, 2.80 FIP :-)

FIP is not a value stat.

Two people, actually.

Hmm. I wouldn't be at all surprised if those were two KC voters trying to help Greinke win.

Hey, we've still got a few days left to be outraged at the screwing Joe Mauer is going to get by the dumbass writers. Don't spoil the fun.

Since Mauer got both NYY votes, I don't see any chance of him losing. I would be shocked if he's not unanimous.

Hey, we've still got a few days left to be outraged at the screwing Joe Mauer is going to get by the dumbass writers. Don't spoil the fun.

So, if it's unanimous, can we be outraged that the voters dared to list anyone else on their ballots?

FIP is not a value stat.

I'm joking Larry. Didn't the smiley face get that across?

nice to see CC get some recognition, but no one gave Lester a Miss Congeniality?

If there is an article titled "Yankees in talks with Royals", I will scream so loud that every glass in North America will shatter.

How do they decide which writers vote for which awards?

Congrats, Mr. Greinke. I think this speaks volumes toward the idea that the writer's aren't at least aware of a more sophisticated level of thought in regard to evaluating pitchers.

Since Mauer got both NYY votes, I don't see any chance of him losing. I would be shocked if he's not unanimous.

I know Larry. I've been insisting he was going to win as long as you have. My point is, an awful lot of people at this site spend an awful lot of time ######## about the stupid decisions the stupid writers are going to make, and recently, these predictions have been pretty spectacularly wrong (see Howard over Pujols in 08). And when 2010 rolls around, we'll see the same preemptive whining taking place.

I've been insisting he was going to win as long as you have.

I knew that Mauer was going to win in a landslide when I heard all the beat writers laughing this summer about the idea of someone else winning the MVP.

an article titled "Yankees in talks with Royals"

KC's shopping Wilson Betemit already?

I think this speaks volumes toward the idea that the writer's aren't at least aware of a more sophisticated level of thought in regard to evaluating pitchers.

I don't know if it really speaks to that at all. The guy had everything except wins going for him, and contrary to popular belief there really isn't this long history of giving the CYA to the guy with the most wins.

awful lot of people at this site spend an awful lot of time ######## about the stupid decisions the stupid writers are going to make, and recently, these predictions have been pretty spectacularly wrong (see Howard over Pujols in 08).

During every summer, there are lots of articles written about some players having a good year who "might deserve MVP consideration" and everyone freaks out (not just here, but every baseball blogger on the web). Often the writer is just trying to complement the player. And, of course, until mid-September there was always a chance that someone could go all George Brett 1980 and pull the race out. But none of this has anything to do with how the vote actually is going to go down.

Hey, we've still got a few days left to be outraged at the screwing Joe Mauer is going to get by the dumbass writers. Don't spoil the fun.

That possibility, if there even was one, ended when the Twins made the playoffs.

I dunno. A certain amount of pre-emptive whining about what a dumb decision somebody's fixing to make can play a role in preventing the dumb decision. A tactic in many election campaigns and successful marriages since time immemorial :)

I knew that Mauer was going to win in a landslide when I heard all the beat writers laughing this summer about the idea of someone else winning the MVP.

I knew he would win in a landslide before he was even conceived.

Can anybody find the thread (from last year, I think) where the BBWAA web designer came to say that he thought his old neon green site was "fun?"

How did you need to be sophisticated to see that Greinke dominated the AL? If you look beyond leading the league in wins, he was obviously the winner. Having by far the lowest ERA in a long time, plus solid other stats makes things pretty easy, as shown by the results.

The problem is not screwing over the obvious winner. The problems come when the field is more broad.

and recently, these predictions have been pretty spectacularly wrong (see Howard over Pujols in 08).

you do know that Howard got 12 1st place votes don't you?
you do know that Howard beat Pujols in 2007?

or do you have a VERY different definition of "spectacularly wrong" than anyone else?

FIP is not a value stat.

On this note, can someone please explain why people cite K and BB rates in Cy Young discussions?

On this note, can someone please explain why people cite K and BB rates in Cy Young discussions?

Because they are relevant to how well a pitcher pitched?

Now that almost 50% of players are pitchers, it would be nice to see the writers vote on the top 5 or top 10 pitchers. If nothing else, there would be a little more recongition to spread around.

FIP is not a value stat.

On this note, can someone please explain why people cite K and BB rates in Cy Young discussions?

It's a clumsy attempt at separating pitching from fielding.

you do know that Howard got 12 1st place votes don't you?
you do know that Howard beat Pujols in 2007?

or do you have a VERY different definition of "spectacularly wrong" than anyone else?

I also said recently.

I think the awards voters for the BBWAA have made considerable strides in the last few years. The fact that Howard finished a distant second or that someone voted for Justin Verlander doesn't change that.

And it really doesn't matter whether we're right or wrong, ultimately. ######## about the stupidity of something that hasn't happened yet is an asinine endeavor (as the KC Star writer did a few months ago when he complained of the screwing Zack was going to get).

and contrary to popular belief there really isn't this long history of giving the CYA to the guy with the most wins.

No, but there is a history of them giving the CYA to a guy with a high win total or a gaudy W/L record, like Cliff Lee, Roger Clemens in 2001, John Smoltz in 1996, and Bob Welch in 1990. Say Sabathia pitches exactly the same, but he gets very lucky with bullpen and offensive support, and he wins two of his losses and three of his NDs, and instead of 19-8 3.37 230 IP, he's 24-6 3.37 230 IP, he gets the award in a landslide.

No, but there is a history of them giving the CYA to a guy with a high win total or a gaudy W/L record, like Cliff Lee, Roger Clemens in 2001, John Smoltz in 1996, and Bob Welch in 1990.

I don't think Cliff Lee fits; Colon in 2005 was a more obvious wins-trump-all choice.

Didn't Cone win in 1994 with 16 wins? Not sure how they make mention of the 16 win level as ground breaking?

Didn't Cone win in 1994 with 16 wins? Not sure how they make mention of the 16 win level as ground breaking?

1994 is a bit different.

Surely Zack must be all smiles right now, although those smiles could turn to despair by the grim news that Brad and Angelina are on the ropes.

thing is, Greinke managed to garner 16 wins. respectable. what would have been verrrrry interesting, however, is how he would have fared had the Royals blew his last two wins, leaving him with the same stats but 'just' 14 Ws. what then?

understand, i'm not complaining or looking to split hairs. i just think getting on the other side of 15 wins was HUGE in impact on the voters. that and there not being a 22 or 23 game winner on the books.

bravo to a good choice!!

Of course, Duh!

those smiles could turn to despair by the grim news that Brad and Angelina are on the ropes.

Wouldn't that make him happy? I thought he was a card-carrying member of Team Jen.

No, but there is a history of them giving the CYA to a guy with a high win total or a gaudy W/L record, like Cliff Lee, Roger Clemens in 2001, John Smoltz in 1996, and Bob Welch in 1990.

Cliff Lee also led the league in ERA (and ERA+). He's not at all in the same category as some of those other winners.

WOOOAH! BILLS FINALLY FIRED JAURON!

Oh, sorry, I had to yell that somewhere.

From CBS Sports - the Verlander vote did come from Detroit. The Hernandez votes didn't come from Seattle.

The first-place votes for Hernandez came from Chris Assenheimer of the Chronicle-Telegram in Elyria, Ohio, and Mark Feinsand of the Daily News in New York. Verlander's first-place vote was cast by Steve Kornacki of Booth Newspapers in Michigan.

Link: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/12535920/royals-greinke-beats-out-king-felix-for-al-cy-young-award

WOOOAH! BILLS FINALLY FIRED JAURON!

It's about damn time.

Wouldn't that make him happy? I thought he was a card-carrying member of Team Jen.

I thought he just wanted Brad to be happy.

And free guacamole at Chipotle.

46.

No, but there is a history of them giving the CYA to a guy with a high win total or a gaudy W/L record, like Cliff Lee, Roger Clemens in 2001, John Smoltz in 1996, and Bob Welch in 1990. Say Sabathia pitches exactly the same, but he gets very lucky with bullpen and offensive support, and he wins two of his losses and three of his NDs, and instead of 19-8 3.37 230 IP, he's 24-6 3.37 230 IP, he gets the award in a landslide.

I think this is 100% correct.

I think it could be even smaller. Keep all the other stats the same, but make Sabathia 20-7 and Greinke 14-9, and I think Sabathia takes it.

When A-Rod failed to sweep the AL MVP a couple of Detroit writers gave Cabrera their first place vote. Is this the same guys, or just a community tradition?

From CBS Sports - the Verlander vote did come from Detroit. The Hernandez votes didn't come from Seattle.

The first-place votes for Hernandez came from Chris Assenheimer of the Chronicle-Telegram in Elyria, Ohio, and Mark Feinsand of the Daily News in New York. Verlander's first-place vote was cast by Steve Kornacki of Booth Newspapers in Michigan.



Link: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/12535920/royals-greinke-beats-out-king-felix-for-al-cy-young-award

I think it could be even smaller. Keep all the other stats the same, but make Sabathia 20-7 and Greinke 14-9, and I think Sabathia takes it.

I highly doubt that.

Brad and Angelina are on the ropes

.

I say he goes back to Jen, right around the holidays. I want Dec 28 if we have a pool.

Verlander 1st is a lot worse than Hernandez 4th.

As a generalization I would say, no, you don't yank a guys vote because you disagree with it. But when it turns out that the Verlander vote came from Detroit, I say, yes, yank it. Crappy judgment is one thing but being a complete homey is another. I suppose this ####### is gonna vote for Cabrera for MVP. Which wouldn't be worse than this here vote.

Verlander 1st is a lot worse than Hernandez 4th.

Why?

Can anybody find the thread (from last year, I think) where the BBWAA web designer came to say that he thought his old neon green site was "fun?"

Can't help there, but the current site isn't exactly a paragon of good design.

I suppose this ####### is gonna vote for Cabrera for MVP.

I don't suppose he is this year.

On this note, can someone please explain why people cite K and BB rates in Cy Young discussions?

It's a clumsy attempt at separating pitching from fielding.

I understand the value of FIP for projecting future performance. But in terms of the Cy Young, why would we care whether a guy gets his outs by K rather than another means, except to the extent an exceptionally good or bad defense behind him could distort the results of his batted balls?

Crappy judgment is one thing but being a complete homey is another.

Racist!

The first-place votes for Hernandez came from Chris Assenheimer of the Chronicle-Telegram in Elyria, Ohio

I sort of thought someone would get a joke out of that, although s/he voted for Hernandez, not Verlander. "Assenheimer" is still a great name, though.

I sort of thought someone would get a joke out of that, although s/he voted for Hernandez, not Verlander. "Assenheimer" is still a great name, though.

If you had a student named Jack Assenheimer, would you be able to get through roll call without giggling? If you say yes then you're a liar!

I think it could be even smaller. Keep all the other stats the same, but make Sabathia 20-7 and Greinke 14-9, and I think Sabathia takes it.

I highly doubt that.

Roger Clemens lost the 2005 Cy Young to Chris Carpenter
21-5 beating 13-8

Pedro lost the 2003 Cy Young to Hallday (who to be fair had a significant IP edge)

Kevin Brown (17-11, 1.89) lost in 1996 to John Smoltz (24-8, 2.94)
In 1990 Clemens lost to Welch

What?!? Someone didn't have Greinke #1, Hernandez #2, Eaton #3? Are they watching the same sport I'm watching???

"Assenheimer" is still a great name, though.

In Elementary School I had classmate with that name, on year he was the ace of my little league team too, he was year older than everyone else (I think his parents just started him a year late- he was pretty average as a student), a couple inches taller, couple pounds heavier (bone and muscle), had a temper... for some reason no one made fun of his name (not when he was in the same zip code)

When A-Rod failed to sweep the AL MVP a couple of Detroit writers gave Cabrera their first place vote

Not totally important, but that was Maggs, not Cabrera

Apparently Zack is getting married this Saturday to a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader. So....good week for him.

If you had a student named Jack Assenheimer, would you be able to get through roll call without giggling? If you say yes then you're a liar!

If you're a pro, you're a pro. Just like the Braves' PA man back when he had to contend with Brian Asselstine.

When A-Rod failed to sweep the AL MVP a couple of Detroit writers gave Cabrera their first place vote

Not totally important, but that was Maggs

And Ordonez was a lot closer to AROD that year than Verlander was to Greinke this year.

Pedro lost the 2003 Cy Young to Hallday (who to be fair had a significant IP edge)

"Significant" is an understatement. Halladay had an 80 IP lead on Pedro for that season. At that sort of difference, it's completely reasonable for the voters to go for quantity.

If anyone got screwed in the voting that year (and I don't think anyone did), that person was Esteban Loaiza.

I understand the value of FIP for projecting future performance. But in terms of the Cy Young, why would we care whether a guy gets his outs by K rather than another means, except to the extent an exceptionally good or bad defense behind him could distort the results of his batted balls?

I understand the value of ERA for projecting future performance. But in terms of the Cy Young, why would we care whether a guy gets his wins by limiting scoring rather than another means, except to the extent an exceptionally good or bad offense behind could distort the results of his starts?

#79 didn't work as well as many of my other attempts at the same joke. I guess I could've compared the fielding outs to RBI or something instead. The point is that they're teammate-dependent, whereas Ks are all on the pitcher.

It's been eight years and we're still having the same arguments here.

It's been eight years and we're still having the same arguments here.

If you ask the Usenet guys, they've been having the same arguments for a lot longer than 8 years.

Not totally important, but that was Maggs, not Cabrera

Since Cabrera was still a Marlin in '07, it's at least a little important.

Not that he deserved the award in any way, shape or form, but I'm amazed Sabathia didn't get a single first place vote. Perhaps the writers are actually getting smarter?

"Significant" is an understatement. Halladay had an 80 IP lead on Pedro for that season. At that sort of difference, it's completely reasonable for the voters to go for quantity.

to match Halladay's ERA+ of 145 in 266 IP Pedro would have needed to pitch 79 1/3 ip with 49 ER (5.56 ERA or an 83 ERA+)- right around replacement/5th starter territory, so you are right it's a push

My point is, an awful lot of people at this site spend an awful lot of time ######## about the stupid decisions the stupid writers are going to make, and recently, these predictions have been pretty spectacularly wrong (see Howard over Pujols in 08). And when 2010 rolls around, we'll see the same preemptive whining taking place.

Of course. Because one of the Golden Rules of BTF is how much smarter we are than the writers. That's a given.

Of course. Because one of the Golden Rules of BTF is how much smarter we are than the writers. That's a given.

Also, we're more moralistic.

If you're a pro, you're a pro. Just like the Braves' PA man back when he had to contend with Brian Asselstine.

And not long after - Paul Assenmacher.

The point is that they're teammate-dependent, whereas Ks are all on the pitcher.

Um, no. Batter has some effect on this, too. (And umpire.)

K/9 and BB/9 are not, in isolation, wholly informative. Someone could have 27 K/9 but lose every game because when the batter doesn't miss the ball, it gets crushed. Similarly, 0 BB/9 could just mean that the guy grooves everything once he gets to 3 balls. Obviously these degenerate cases wouldn't be likely to fall into a Cy Young discussion, but I interpret the original question to be asking about their use as some sort of "optimal" (not really how people are using them, but I'm not coming up with a better adjective at the moment) assessment of a player's performance. K/BFP or BB/BFP would be more useful as a means of assessing the efficacy of a given pitcher, but one almost never sees these being bandied about. Of course, to be complete in either case (per 9 or per BFP) one should (as I originally noted) consider the opposition faced, as Ks and BBs aren't solely pitcher-dependent events, either. We simply assume that there is a sufficiently connected set of pitcher-batter edges that we can meaningfully compare one pitcher to another, even if all edges are not created equal (e.g., lefty/righty match-up, curveball pitcher vs. off-speed hitter, etc.). While the set is not usually as dense as one would like, I suspect it is usually in the "close enough" category.

In the end, though, doesn't matter here...best pitcher won so we can all be happy.

Oh, has anyone here mentioned that thank effing christ they got it right? Oh, that's been posted already, I never would've guessed.

Of course. Because one of the Golden Rules of BTF is how much smarter we are than the writers. That's a given.

We are (most of us anyway). Also most of my co-workers are not only smarter than the baseball writers, but they are better writers as well.
Also most of my relatives (the vast majority of who are college grads fwiw, but one who isn't is ironically a professional author) are not only smarter than the average baseball writer, but better writers as well.

The current state of sports writing, especially newspaper sports writing is abysmal. Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but go to a library (or online archive), look at what was written 20/30/40 years ago, there has been a definite downward slide going on.

K/9 and BB/9 are not, in isolation, wholly informative. Someone could have 27 K/9 but lose every game because when the batter doesn't miss the ball, it gets crushed. Similarly, 0 BB/9 could just mean that the guy grooves everything once he gets to 3 balls. Obviously these degenerate cases wouldn't be likely to fall into a Cy Young discussion,

Obviously these degenerate cases wouldn't even sniff the MLB let alone the Cy Young discussion.

Someone could have 27 K/9 but lose every game because when the batter doesn't miss the ball, it gets crushed.

Not possible, someone looked up and collated the BABIP of every non-pitcher pitching, aggregate BABIP was something like .335 (basically I call it the Glendon Rusch line)
I prefer K/PA to k/IP anyway...

Similarly, 0 BB/9 could just mean that the guy grooves everything once he gets to 3 balls.

You mean Silva?

There's a limit, k/9, k/bb aren't be all and end all, but they are a lot more informative than you seem to think. Given that both DIPS and FIP predict further ERA better than actual ERA(barely), they shouldn't be dismissed as not being "wholly informative"

Of course. Because one of the Golden Rules of BTF is how much smarter we are than the writers. That's a given.

so smart we help increase the same writers' prestige and importance by hyping up and obsessing over these awards!

Roger Clemens lost the 2005 Cy Young to Chris Carpenter
21-5 beating 13-8

Pedro lost the 2003 Cy Young to Hallday (who to be fair had a significant IP edge)

Kevin Brown (17-11, 1.89) lost in 1996 to John Smoltz (24-8, 2.94)
In 1990 Clemens lost to Welch

Forget Zack. This suggests that if CC had one extra win, that would have vaulted him from Cy Young nonentity past Felix Hernandez and his one fewer win and nearly full run of advantage in ERA.

Color me skeptical.

Again, I think the beat writers have made significant strides when it comes to voting, likely spurred by a) the types of new guys welcomed into (and voting) in the BBWAA, b) greater acceptance of more meaningful measurements.

Forget Zack. This suggests that if CC had one extra win, that would have vaulted him from Cy Young nonentity past Felix Hernandez and his one fewer win and nearly full run of advantage in ERA.

The hypothetical was one more win for CC and two fewer for Zach.

What if we give CC 2 extra wins?

I wasn't surprised that Greinke won, I was surprised by the margin- I assumed Felix would pick up more 1st place votes, and thought at least one voter would handed in a King Felix/CC/Verlander ballot...

Anyway, forget CC, one more win (everything else being the same) may have made for a remarkable impact on Felix's vote totals, two more and I think he would have won.

The hypothetical was one more win for CC and two fewer for Zach.

The hypothetical stated one more win for CC and two fewer for Zack and CC takes it. The problem is that if the voters really did dock Zack for that, then it's King Felix who claims the prize. If they weren't wowed by Hernandez's three-win edge but slightly worse performance compared to Greinke, and the vote totals show they clearly weren't, it's rather ridiculous to think they'd have given the nod to CC on the basis of one extra win and a significant disadvantage ERA wise compared to Felix.

I wasn't surprised that Greinke won, I was surprised by the margin- I assumed Felix would pick up more 1st place votes, and thought at least one voter would handed in a King Felix/CC/Verlander ballot...

Anyway, forget CC, one more win (everything else being the same) may have made for a remarkable impact on Felix's vote totals, two more and I think he would have won.

It's possible. But as this outcome compared to past injustices indicates, the voters seem less mesmerized by big win totals now.

But I also don't work under the assumption that all sportswriters are stupid, as you seemingly do. The flaw of having been one, I suppose.

In the end, though, doesn't matter here...best pitcher won so we can all be happy.

I refuse!

#79 didn't work as well as many of my other attempts at the same joke. I guess I could've compared the fielding outs to RBI or something instead. The point is that they're teammate-dependent, whereas Ks are all on the pitcher.

No, it was well done. My response would be that the difference in pitcher control between ERA and wins is much bigger than that between DIPS/FIP and ERA. So it's not really fair to lump the pro-ERA/anti-DIPS/FIP crowd in with the pro-wins crowd. It's basically saying that if you're willing to accept a stat that includes some noise, that logically you should be willing to accept one that has tons of noise. But taking the argument to the logical extremes, I understand your point.

Anyway, I'm sure there have already been hundreds of discussions on this here, but I haven't been there and I'm curious. Isn't it a problem that in an effort to find a stat that excludes factors beyond a pitcher's control, we throw out many events in which a pitcher has a lot of control -- in fact, even more events than the ones we end up including? Also, I know FIP predicts ERA better than ERA, but is it the best? How does OPS against stack up?

The first place vote for Verlander is a joke.

Yeah, it's just so ridiculous to vote a guy #1 who led the league in wins, innings, Ks, Ks/9, had more starts and a better winning percentage than the winner, and actually pitched in a pennant race.

If you had a student named Jack Assenheimer, would you be able to get through roll call without giggling? If you say yes then you're a liar!

A friend of mine goes to school with a guy named D.R. Buttwieler. I can't imagine all the different ways this guy got his life ruined by that handle.

But I also don't work under the assumption that all sportswriters are stupid, as you seemingly do.

Never said all (though all the ones I've personally met (small sample size), have been absolute morons. Not that I haven't met morons in other fields (including my own).

Yeah, it's just so ridiculous to vote a guy #1 who led the league in wins, innings, Ks, Ks/9, had more starts and a better winning percentage than the winner, and actually pitched in a pennant race.

In this particular instance, yes.
And even if those are your criteria how do you justify a vote for Verlander over King Felix? He threw 1/3 more innings than King Felix, and gave up 18 more runs.