WHAT A JOKE.

Pwned! Klemens got kremed!

At least Clemens might have the right total number after this. Now the Yankees need to trade RJ back to the NL, where he finishes the year with a gaudy record and is voted the 2006 Cy Young despite Carpenter's deserving it more.

That's interesting. If I view the thread by its long, name-based URL, I see all 3 posts. If I view it by number, only the first two show up even after I've posted #3.

As I said in the Lounge...

Ack, what to do...I love Carp, but I don't think he should've won. Something tells me I'm going to feel the same way when Albert wins the MVP next week, but I'll be a little less ambivalent about that one.

But here's a question: not that Willis deserved it either, but how many times has a guy lost the Cy Young to a pitcher with fewer wins and a higher ERA? It can't be that common. Two that come to mind are Mark Mulder in 2001 and Dwight Gooden in 1984, but both Clemens and Sutcliffe had insane winning percentages.

I'd love to have a chat with the guy who voted for Chad Cordero. That should be interesting.

tells me I'm going to feel the same way when Albert wins the MVP next week, but I'll be a little less ambivalent about that one.

I want Albert to win it, but would be okay with Lee winning it.

As for Cy Young, I'm happy for Carpenter. First time since 1970 a Cardinal has won the Cy.

Albert is going to finish 2nd to Andruw next week. Jones will then own the lowest batting average EVER for an MVP winner. BBWAA-ers luv them "RBI leaders on a winner".

Reposted from the Sun-Sentinel thread (33929) with a little added detail:

the difference between Carpenter and Clemens (what Carpenter "added"):

IP R ER 1B 2B 3B HR BB SO HBP BFP ERA
30.3 31 32 26 20 0 7 -9 28 0 115 9.50
</pre>
the difference between Willis and Clemens:

IP R ER 1B 2B 3B HR BB SO HBP BFP ERA
25.0 28 25 37 19 6 0 -7 -15 5 122 9.00
</pre>
Yes, thanks for the enormous value of all those extra innings, guys. That's a tough call, indeed.

At least Clemens might have the right total number after this.

Actually, this puts him one short now, given that 2005 made up for 1990.

No Jake Peavy love?

I want Albert to win it, but would be okay with Lee winning it.

I'm the other way around. I'll be pissed, though, when Jones wins.

I'd love to have a chat with the guy who voted for Chad Cordero. That should be interesting.

He probably has some completely new, proprietary system for evaluating pitchers.

And a tumor.

See, if there was ever a time that I thought a Cardinal deserved an award (see McGwire, 1998, or Jason Marquis's Silver Slugger this year), I'd fight tooth and nail for him to win. But I don't want charity; I want it to go to the guy who deserves it. It's not worth much the other way.

That said, I'll be pretty pissed if both Lee and Pujols lose the MVP to Andruw.

Wow, I just noticed Clemens' 221 ERA+. That's the second best of his career!

I'd love to have a chat with the guy who voted for Chad Cordero. That should be interesting.

coughBoswellcough

(The Silver Slugger comment was tongue in cheek, but damned if Jason didn't deserve it.)

So the difference between Clemens and Willis/Carpenter is a Cub reliever?

So the difference between Clemens and Willis/Carpenter is a Cub reliever?

I wouldn't have thought a Cub reliever could walk negative-nine batters.

While I don't think that Carpenter should have been named CY YOUNG, expecting the SABRetarded BBWA to elect Clemens this year with 13 Wins (that's every pitchers goal, right? Winning!) would be like hoping for a Ralph Nader/ Alan Keys Presidential ticket in 2008....That aside, the Carpenter pick (over Willis) wasn't better than many Cy pics in recent memory

1. Colon over Santana or Rivera (2005)
2. Clemens over Randy Johnson (2004)
3. Zito over Pedro (2002)
4. Clemens over just about everyone in 2001 (Mulder, Hudson, Moyer, Garcia, Mussina for cryin out loud)
5. Bob Welch over Clemens, Eckersley, Stewart, Thigpen in 1990 (though 27 Wins was pretty overwhelming for traditional voters)
6. Hoyt over Dotson and Quisenberry (and maybe Morris)
in 1983
7. Pete Vukovich over hmmm.... no one ran away with it this year...Maybe it would have been a good year for Quis to win one...Maybe Steib...maybe Bill Caudill.... nah...no M's pitcher was going to win the CY in 1983 without a 1972 Carlton performance.
8. Steve Stone over Mike NOrris in 1980

In short, they picked the wrong guy this season in both leagues....But they'lve done worse....Besides, if the writers had any balls, they would have given the award to Nolan Ryan in 1987 (8-16 2.76 E.R.A. 270/212 SO/IP, 1.14 E.R.A.)..... Is 1987 the only season where the BBWA got 3/4 of the "non-ROY" awards wrong?

Actually, this puts him one short now, given that 2005 made up for 1990.

What about 2001 and 2004?

Jones will then own the lowest batting average EVER for an MVP winner. BBWAA-ers luv them "RBI leaders on a winner".

Don't slam them on RBIs if you're going to cite to batting average as a reason not to vote for him.

How about: lowest OPS+ since 2002, lowest OPS+ in NL since 1987.

I wouldn't have thought a Cub reliever could walk negative-nine batters.

Well, you know how Dusty hates walks.

Actually, this puts him one short now, given that 2005 made up for 1990.

Do you mean 2004? He didn't win in either 2005 or 1990.

I'm curious what 2001 made up for, though.

In my opinion, Clemens deserved to win the Cy Young but didn't in 1990, 1992 and 1994, while winning the Cy Young but not deserving it in 1987, 2001 and 2004. He won an MVP he didn't deserve in 1986, but lost an MVP he did deserve in 1997. So everything was in equlibrium after 2004, but this year knocked the universe out of kilter again.

I wouldn't have thought a Cub reliever could walk negative-nine batters.

Excellent point. He could do the IP, HR, and ERA, though.

Is 1987 the only season where the BBWA got 3/4 of the "non-ROY" awards wrong?

Without checking, almost certainly not.

I'm the other way around. I'll be pissed, though, when Jones wins.

Me too.

Most people are saying Jones will win. I think there's been enough written though about how he doesn't deserve it that there'll be enough backlash from a handful of writers (voting Jones 6th or 7th) that Jones may get the most 1st place votes, but will not win the MVP.

Besides, if the writers had any balls, they would have given the award to Nolan Ryan in 1987 (8-16 2.76 E.R.A. 270/212 SO/IP, 1.14 E.R.A.)

1987's one of the few years I would have voted for a reliever: against a weak crop of starters, the now-forgotten Tim Burke had a 355 ERA+ in 91 relief innings.

In my opinion, Clemens deserved to win the Cy Young but didn't in 1990, 1992 and 1994, while winning the Cy Young but not deserving it in 1987, 2001 and 2004.

Mussina's awful close to him in 1992 and 1994, and Stewart has those 40 extra innings in 1990. Who do you think deserved it in 1987?

Who do you think deserved it in 1987?

Jimmy Key...although Clemens did have twenty more innings. I don't think any of those years are slam dunks, but that's whom I would have voted for.

Kelvim Escobar for Cy Young in 2007!



You got a diamond, you got nine men
You got a hat, and a bat and that's not all
You got the bleachers, you got 'em from spring 'til fall
You got a dog and a drink and an umpire's call.
What do you want? Let's play ball

Is that a flyball?, or is it a seagull?
Coming in, from the lake, just to catch the game
It's the last inning, our guy's are winning
Dave's putting down a smoker, a strike, and you've got no doubt
What do you want? Let's play ball

OK! Blue Jays! Let's...play...ball.

It's a beautiful evening, fans, at the ballpark, when the game starts
Warm summer breezes, sun's going down, and it's all dark at the ball park
That's OK, it's a night game

OK! Blue Jays! Let's...play...ball.
OK! Blue Jays! Let's...play...ball.

Bring on the White Sox, Bring on the BoSox
Bring on the Brewers, the Rangers and the Yankees too
We'll beat the Indians, and we'll beat the Tigers
We'll beat the A's so bad, gonna make Billy blue
What do you want? Let's play ball

OK! Blue Jays! Let's...play...ball.
OK! Blue Jays! Let's...play...ball.

Carpenter's winning over Willis is likely the result of the fact that many BBWAA writers decide the winner at least several weeks before the end of the season. Once they've decided, a player has to work hard to un-win the award.

Is 1987 the only season where the BBWA got 3/4 of the "non-ROY" awards wrong?

Just perusing BB-Ref (stead' of workin'), an argument could be made they may have gotten 3 wrong (SABR-matically speaking) in 1998, though Tom Glavine was arguably a decent choice (Brown , Hoffman and Maddux would have made good pics) and if Sosa didn't win, then Mcgwire would have...Sosa was not a horrible choice...hmm....so I would say 1998 they got at least 1.5/4 right

1989: A strong argument could be made that Mitchell/Yount/Davis were not the best pics

Guy, you are the King of Ellipses.

Is that a Real "Blue Jays Rooter" song....I had no idea that true team fight songs for baseball clubs existed since the 1959 Go-Go SOX.... Since then, isn't it just "Theme Songs" ("We Are a Family", "Don't Stop Believing", etc.etc.).... I guess Ontarionians weren't about to make a Bryan Adams song the Jays theme, and Spos fans song "Comme ce va Guy LeDouch, Nos Amore'" didn't catch on after the 1979 season....I was outside Commiskey immediately after Game 4 of the WS and a bunch of fans started singing to the tune of "We Love you Birdie" from BYE BYE BIRDIE

We Love you White Sox....Oh Yes We Do
We Love You White Sox...and we'll be True
And if you are a Cubs Fan.....F*%K You!!
Oh White Sox We Love You!

Very Classy

rdfc (#33) makes a strong point, though it doesn't always work out that way (Maddux, Glavine in 1998).

What would be lovely is if Carpenter and Willis go into a spell of years where they battle it out, like Koufax and Marichal. I remember how one major publication referred to Marichal as Avis (we try harder); even after Koufax retired, there he goes and gets injured in '67, and then Gibson goes 1.12 in '68. Whatever; not comparing these guys to that, but it IS fun when the same guys battle for the writers favor year after year.

Carpenter's winning over Willis is likely the result of the fact that many BBWAA writers decide the winner at least several weeks before the end of the season. Once they've decided, a player has to work hard to un-win the award.

This is a good point. In that vein, I've heard writers talk about "games that matter" and Carpenter's ERA rose about 0.5 points after the Cardinals had clinched the division. Before his last, what, three or four starts, he had better numbers than Dontrelle and was pretty darn close to Clemens. In mid-September, Carp had the highest SNVA (and like stats) in the NL.

Florida's turning into a pretty solid pitcher's park; I'd have a hard time putting D-train ahead of Carpenter.

As for Clemens--does it matter at this point? Yeah, he deserved; yeah, I voted for him on the IBA ballot. But his reputation is made, and whether his plaque says 7 Cys or 8 is sort of irrelevant.

But he definitely deserved the AL Cy in '87, and the MVP in '86 (and '97, too).

GO JAYS!!!

IS PLAYED AT SKYDOME ALL THE TIME!!!!

EVERY SO OFTEN, I GET THE MR. SUB SONG IN MY HEAD, TOO....

THERE'S ALWAYS SOMETHING GOOD GOING DOWN AT MR. SUB!!!!


PIZZA PIZZA!!!!

No crying for Roger. I doubt if anybody marked their ballot without at least thinking of him. It's the guys they never even thought of, usually some guy with some horsebleep team who manages to bleed out a dozen-13 wins, that is really getting jobbed.

That chorus part of the "OK Blue Jays Let's Play Ball" song was something they used to do during the seventh inning stretch in Toronto. At least it was when I saw them at Exhibition Stadium in 1988.

In defense of Carpenter, his FIP was closer to his actual ERA (0.05) than any of the other candidates, so he seems to have benefited less from his defense and luck than they did. His "expected FIP" was the best in the NL. Maybe this is what the writers were thinking. . .


1. Clemens0.98
2. Suppan 0.95
4. Marquis0.80
5. Pettitte0.66
7. Mulder 0.64
13.Willis 0.34</pre>

I include all the StL guys to show how much they seem to have benefited from their defense.

That chorus part of the "OK Blue Jays Let's Play Ball" song was something they used to do during the seventh inning stretch in Toronto. At least it was when I saw them at Exhibition Stadium in 1988.

They still the whole thing in the 7th inning stretch, not just the chorus.

Still "do".

By the way, that chart is supposed to show FIP-ERA. You have to admit Clemens' ERA was better than it should have been, given his peripherals.

I've seen 'analysis' like presented in #9 a lot on this site, but why is that even relevant? It's a construct that isn't the least bit descriptive of how their comparative season's played out or how their runs were distributed. Wouldn't a start by start analysis of their effect in win probability do both doable and more revealing?

Mind you, that may show that Clemens was better, I just don't think tha work on #9 gets us any closer to stating that...

So what #43 numbers are saying is that Clemens allowed fewer runs than expected and was therefore more "clutch".

The Cy Young isn't a comparison of who could be expected to be better next year for your fantasy league. This is who performed better this year.

I would have been perfectly fine with any of carpenter, pettitte, willis or clemens winning. But I really don't think carpenter winning over clemens is the travesty some of you guys seem to think.

I know it's overstated about how many innings pitched, but when clemens pitched, his team knew he had to have at least one reliever, which means that clemens was guaranteed to tax the bullpen somewhat every single game, that figures into the game before and the game after. Carpenter, Willis and Pettitte didn't have that problem.

on top of that, since clemens knew he wasn't required to complete games he was able to not pace himself(assuming that pitchers actually do that)

I wouldn't have had a problem with clemens winning it, but with last year and only 13 wins this year, it was silly to think he would actually win it. I'm more surprised that Willis lost to Carpenter. I'm glad to see that Pettite got votes(and that pedro didn't)

"First time since 1970 a Cardinal has won the Cy. "

The Angels waited since 1964. It isn't like both teams
have had cr@p pitchers in the meantime.

So what #43 numbers are saying is that Clemens allowed fewer runs than expected and was therefore more "clutch".

I think it means that Clemens relied on his defense for his great numbers more than Carpenter. It's kind of like comparing RBI totals for hitters -- what's team dependant and what's the result of the individual player's goodness.

I don't think it's a travesty, because both Carpenter and Willis had Cy Young quality seasons - unlike Bartolo Colon, who had the kind of season that should get a Cy only if there's no one else to vote for. But Carpenter was still, to me, the #3 choice.

Willis' argument for the Cy is strongly based on his hitting; Willis' hitting is worth almost 2 wins compared to Carpenter's, an about enormous difference. (The difference between Willis and Clemens is two-thirds of a win)

It isn't like both teams
have had cr@p pitchers in the meantime.

For the Cards, pitchers that have finished in the top 5 since 1970:

'71 -- Gibson came in 5th.
'74 -- Hrabosky came in 5th.
'75 -- Hrabosky came in 3rd.
'81 -- Sutter came in 5th.
'82 -- Sutter came in 3rd.
'84 -- Sutter came in 3rd.
'84 -- Andujar came in 4th.
'85 -- Tudor came in 2nd.
'85 -- Andujar came in 4th.
'89 -- Magrane came in 4th.
'91 -- Smith came in 2nd.
'92 -- Tewksbury came in 3rd.
'92 -- Smith came in 4th.
'96 -- An. Benes came in 3rd.
'00 -- Kile (RIP) came in 4th.
'01 -- Morris came in 3rd.
'05 -- Carpenter came in 1st.

I don't know if this is a lot or a little. For Cardinal fans, it's probably somewhat interesting (it was to me). For the rest of you, feel free to move along.

I know it's overstated about how many innings pitched, but when clemens pitched, his team knew he had to have at least one reliever, which means that clemens was guaranteed to tax the bullpen somewhat every single game, that figures into the game before and the game after. Carpenter, Willis and Pettitte didn't have that problem.

I insist you tell us how you figure Pettitte didn't have that problem.

At least Clemens might have the right total number after this. Now the Yankees need to trade RJ back to the NL aquire Chris Carpenter, where he Johnson finishes the year with a gaudy record and is voted the 2006 Cy Young despite Carpenter's deserving it more.

There I like that better.

#47:
The line presented in my post #9 is as relevant as any numbers from the season. If you care to throw their entire seasons' lines out the window, what will you use to compare them? I simply listed the difference in their season lines.

People are still talking about the Astros' supposed need to have a reliever when Clemens pitched. What that line shows is the aggregate difference between the two pitchers' total performances. That is the reliever performance the Astros "need". So one point is to show that that argument makes an assumption about some vague level of contribution that needn't be made, since we can very easily show all the "extra" work one pitcher did.

If you'd like to go through all the game logs and decide who contributed more in each game, go ahead (and have fun demonstrating to everybody's satisfaction that you're being fair about accounting for variable teammates' performances to determine what counts as "clutch" or "meaningless"). Unless this demonstrates Clemens's inferiority--and we have no reason a priori to expect it would--the evidence we have is their overall performances.

The argument about the difference between FIP and ERA is valid. I acknowledged this in mentioning how Carpenter's extra runs allowed seemed awfully high relative to his extra baserunners allowed. Before concluding for Clemens, I felt it was important to make the strongest possible case in Carpenter's favor. Does the difference in hit type (Clemens having allowed many fewer extra-base hits) insufficiently account for this discrepancy, though? We often suppose defense can turn balls in play into outs; did Clemens benefit disproportionately from a defense that turned XBH into singles? Knowing his pitching style (and the HR rate, which the D couldn't affect) makes this doubtful, too.

I also acknowledge that I have been silently ignoring hitting (and don't forget fielding) contributions. I haven't thought much explicitly about whether the CYA should be for pitching or for all the contributions of a pitcher.

I insist you tell us how you figure Pettitte didn't have that problem.


because his team wouldn't keep him on as short of a leash. If necessary I don't think the astros would have had any problems pitching pettitte an inning past what they think he is still effective. Maybe I'm reading their manager wrong and he always follows pitch counts, or maybe pettite was another glass doll. if so, then my mistake.

and once again, I'm giving pettite extra props for his end of the season performance. Since it was very important for his team that they continue winning and he did that, something that clemens (5.40, 4starts, and 20 ip in september didn't do)

I really don't see the outrage. Over the course of a season, 30.3 innings is a significant number. Carpenter also gave up fewer walks and struck out more batters. I think pitching 7 complete games in this era is also a pretty impressive number.

It's not that Carpenter had more innings, complete games, shutouts, and strikeouts, it's that he was 1st or 2nd in the league in all of them. In general, Carpenter dominated the leaderboards in the NL.

The AL choice of Colon, OTOH, was brutally bad.

Clemens' ERA dominance was mostly a fluke. Carpenter was the best pitcher in the NL before phoning it in down the stretch when the team wanted him to do nothing but make sure he kept his arm healthy for the playoffs.

I think what is most interesting is the difference between the AL and NL winners. I think that everyone agrees that Colon won the Cy Young simply because he had the most wins, however in the NL the pitcher who was maybe the best over the first 3/4 of the season won over the pitcher who had more wins and a better ERA. You could obviously go with any of Carpenter, Willis or Clemens but the dominance of Carpenter until September won him the award -- I don't see how anyone can have a problem with that.

Does anyone know if some of the voters for the AL or NL are the same? I think there are 2 voters for every city which would mean that there could be duplicate voters for Bay Area, LA, Chicago and New York. The difference between the two choices is baffling -- maybe the AL voters throw out the numbers because they think the AL is more about offense and pitching doesn't matter as much?

Where's the BTF NL CYA announcement?

Did all but one voter forget that Andy Pettitte and Pedro Martinez were in the NL this year?

Did all but one voter forget that Andy Pettitte and Pedro Martinez were in the NL this year?

voters get to vote for three people, it was pretty obvious that the only 'real' candidates was carpenter, willis and clemens. I'm kinda shocked that Pettitte didn't get a couple more votes, since whoever was voting for clemens in first, would have been thinking of era as the most important thing, and pettitte was second in ERA.

. Carpenter was the best pitcher in the NL before phoning it in down the stretch when the team wanted him to do nothing but make sure he kept his arm healthy for the playoffs.

I pointed this out earlier and the more I think about the more valid it is. One of hte reasons the Cards could phone it in the last two weeks was because of Carpenter's dominance. His last four starts were not good and, as I pointed out, raised his ERA by at least half a run. Up until that point, he was the best in the NL. I know the award is for the season, and for the Cardinals' meaningful season, Carp was the best.

Clemens was robbed of the Cy Bob Welch won in 1990, too. Then again, how many more 27-win seasons are we likely to see?

The AL choice of Colon, OTOH, was brutally bad.

My guess is that when you are the league's only 20-game winner, you pretty much have the award in the bag.

It's not at all clear that Clemens, Carpenter, and Willis were the only real candidates. (cardsfanboy, your scare qutoes might indicate that you don't think this yourself, so I don't mean to pick on you.) Why would that be clear? Because the latter two got all the writers' hype and we recognize Clemens's greatness this year?

I had Willis 6th on my IBA ballot. Again, that was cast without regard to pitchers' contributions on offense and while fielding. I thought Clemens was clearly #1 and Carpenter was a pretty strong #2. After that, I had Pedro - Pettitte - Oswalt - Willis - Peavy. Pedro had a much lower hit rate than Willis, a lower walk rate, a much higher SO rate, a much lower OBPa, and a lower SLGa. Both played in pitchers' parks. Willis slight IP edge (19) might outweight Pedro's quality edge, but it's absolutely not clear that it does.

Pettitte vs. Willis: Pettitte had a lower hit rate, lower walk rate, higher SO rate, lower OBPa, and almost the same (still a tiny bit lower) SLGa, while pitching in a home park less favorable to pitchers. Against this Willis had a whopping 14 extra IP.

Oswalt had a higher hit rate, lower walk rate, higher SO rate, almost equal OBPa, and higher SLGa, again in a park less favorable to pitchers, while pitching a few more innings than Willis.

I personally had Pettitte off my radar most of the year, but at season's end I had to consider the whole year. Every game counted equally, and I don't care to pick one of the "pulled away early and so was more valuable" or "turned in on down the stretch and so was more valuable" story lines.

So what #43 numbers are saying is that Clemens allowed fewer runs than expected and was therefore more "clutch".

No, it's saying that he benefited greatly from his defense. If you want to say that Clemens has some skill in preventing hits on BIP, there's not much evidence that he has a lot of it.

I can't believe people are still talking about the CG baloney. The value of the CG is reflected in the IP. As illustrated, the IP difference was made up for by the difference in ERA.

If you want to give credit to Carpenter for giving the BP a 'full day off' then I think you need to show some evidence that giving them that kind of rest is superior to the normal, everyday rest that a bullpen gets when their starter routinely goes deep into games.

I don't have a problem with this Cy, by the way. It was very close, and Carpenter had a slight edge (I think).

Clemens' ERA dominance was mostly a fluke. Carpenter was the best pitcher in the NL before phoning it in down the stretch when the team wanted him to do nothing but make sure he kept his arm healthy for the playoffs.

His ERA *dominance* may have been mostly a fluke, but his DIPS ERA was still second best in the league and better than any of the guys who finished ahead of him in the voting. And if you want to only look at stats before Carpenter started dialing it in, well, Clemens' ERA was historically good at that point before he had some late-season troubles.

Mussina's awful close to him in 1992 and 1994

Not to mention the guy who *actually* won it in 1994, Cone, who was only slightly behind Roger in ERA/ERA+ and was slightly ahead in IP. I think the writers made a fine selection in 1994.

Willis finished second because he had 5 more losses than Carpenter, taking him into the magic perceptual realm of double figures. 21-5 is a lot prettier to our base 10 minds than 22-10. Cy voters don't care about IP unless there is a blatantly obvious difference, and once you get over 200, as all three guys did, I'd argue that they don't care at all. They put a huge emphasis on counting stats (wins, saves, and losses), a lesser emphasis on ERA, some emphasis on K's. The rest is noise.

Carpenter's ERA actually rose more than half a point in those four starts, from 2.21 to 2.83. Roger's "historically good" ERA at the time was 1.78, with worse peripherals for the most part (Enough that Carpenter had the better DIPS ERA).

OK, well the start before that Clemens' ERA was 1.57. And 1.78 would have been (I think) one of the top 15 seasons since 1920. I would consider that historically good. Of course, call me crazy, but I consider 1.87 historically good. I don't really have a problem with Carpenter winning the award, though. He had a marvelous season, and he may have been the best pitcher in the league.

Actually, this puts him one short now, given that 2005 made up for 1990.

2001, when he wasn't the best pitcher on his staff.

This is one of the most significant accomplishments by a New Hampshire athlete. Go New Hampshire!

I concur. I like New Hampshire even more since I left, you know that?

MLB, I wasn't calling 'you' out in my post, I hope it wasn't interpreted that way. And your right, your analysis "is what it is" and is perfectly accurate...mathematically.

But to steal a BL term, I don't see how it is at all probative. The innings of the 2 pitcher's weren't distributed that way. You can't just tack on a 30 inning reliver with a 9+ era onto Clemens and equal Carpenter. Carpenter pitched deeper into games, in more high leverage innings, and increased his team's winning chances through those higher leverage innings. Clemens may have been better than Carpenter through inning 6, but Carpenter bested him in the 7th on. It's these extra high leverage innings that can make Carpenter's performance 'better' beyond what a global look at ERA would show.

OK, well the start before that Clemens' ERA was 1.57. And 1.78 would have been (I think) one of the top 15 seasons since 1920. I would consider that historically good. Of course, call me crazy, but I consider 1.87 historically good. I don't really have a problem with Carpenter winning the award, though. He had a marvelous season, and he may have been the best pitcher in the league.

I agree with the historically good, but my initial point (which I only raised as a possible legitimate justification for those who think Carpenter was an abominable choice) was that Carpenter's numbers, his ERA for example, were significantly better before the Cardinals clinched the division and the games no longer mattered. For the Astros, every game mattered, so Clemens' "struggles" came when the Astros needed him to be good.

I'm not saying it's a good argument -- the whole season counts as far as I'm concerned -- but it's a justifiable position.

No one likes New Hampshire.

It's also a justifiable position that if Clemens (and Pettitte and Oswalt, who, I repeat, were also better than Willis in my assessment) hadn't been so absurdly good while the Astros offense was sucking it up before their brief show of life later in the season, they would have been so far back that those late season games would have mattered as they did.

Way to invert the entire point by ommitting three characters from a long sentence, dude.

n't
that those late season games would have mattered
^
</pre>

Actually, yes, in the absence of a very detailed analysis of what exactly was yielded when, combining Clemens's line with the hypothetical reliever described above does produce results equivalent to Carpenter's. If Clemens had pitched those extra innings himself, to match Carpenter's total, and had given up all those extra baserunners, extra-base hits, and runs during those innings, his overall line would have matched Carpenter's. The effect on the Astros is the same whether that extra pitching is done by Clemens and grouped in with his actual numbers or by some crappy reliever they pull off the scrap heap. Any hand-waving about Carpenter's increasing his team's winning chances (which it's hard to see how extra IP @ ERA 9 do) or pitching higher leverage is completely hypothetical and demands an extraordinary burden of evidence.

Similarly, would anybody claim that a batter who hit 50 2B and 50 HR over a full healthy season of 700 PA provided more value than one who hit 44 2B and 44 HR in 400 PA, ceteris paribus? Vague assertions that providing all that extra time is more valuable ignore the ease with which a team could replace the missing 16 XBH in a half-season of freely available filler. Being the guy who "actually gets those hits" is not valuable when you actually use up an extra couple hundred PA in doing so.

The claim that one pitcher's contributions occurred at more valuable times is no more plausible here than it would be about two pitchers with exactly the same aggregate lines. Either way, I'm strongly disinclined to believe you, and you have quite a case to make.

My guess is that when you are the league's only 20-game winner, you pretty much have the award in the bag.

Roy Oswalt cries in the corner about his single first place vote last year.