meow.

...pitchers, who are charged with preventing the opposing team from scoring as few runs as possible...

Wait. Wouldn't preventing as few runs as possible mean that you were allowing as many runs as possible?

PWN3D!

Wait. Wouldn't preventing as few runs as possible mean that you were allowing as many runs as possible?

The best pitchers make liberal use of reverse psychology

Wouldn't preventing as few runs as possible mean that you were allowing as many runs as possible?

They always told me Eric Milton was gonna be a star!

That's why I say Heyman nice shot
What a good shot man

Heyman on Heyman:

Regarding your NL MVP candidates, how about those two guys in Florida? Yes, the Marlins are not in playoff contention, but it's hard to ignore Hanley Ramirez and Miguel Cabrera, especially considering they're first and second, respectively, in the NL in VORP, and rank in the top three in Runs Created. It looks like you went through all the playoff-contending teams, and chose a "good" player from each. Let me ask you: If Cabrera were on a playoff-contender this season, would there be any doubt who the MVP was?
-- Carolyn, Boca Raton, Fla.

Actually, you're right. That's exactly what I did, and how I came up with Prince Fielder as my NL MVP leader. His "good'' year is actually more than good, and the Brewers are right in the thick of the playoff race. While I understand your sentiments, I am more interested in "wins created'' than runs created. And the day I consider VORP is the day I get out of the business. The idea of the MVP is to honor the player who has had the biggest positive impact on the pennant races. I have been a big champion for Ramirez, but I would not consider him a true candidate to win the MVP award.

Funny Heyman story... back in the middle of September 2007, he was on the Michael Kay show explaining why David Wright was the NL MVP by a wide margin (despite having "given" that award already to Prince Fielder earlier that summer)... probably because Wright had the biggest positive impact on the NL East pennant race. About 2 weeks later, Mets choke, Phillies win, Heyman... [/crickets]. Maybe he was too busy yapping on some Philly radio station about Jimmy Rollins's MVP worthiness.

You know, I wonder what we all did before the internet allowed everyone out there to get into instant cat fights like these.

Even moreso, I'm curious what cat fights like this will be like in 10, 15, 25 years, with whatever leap is in store thanks to technology's advances.

I'm curious what cat fights like this will be like in 10, 15, 25 years, with whatever leap is in store thanks to technology's advances.

You obviously haven't watched "The Matrix"

The idea of the MVP is to honor the player who has had the biggest positive impact on the pennant races.

Try reading the ballot instructions next time, genius.

I just don't see Keith Law as Hugo Weaving, but it might be me.

I really didn’t want to call him out, but his classless one-man smear campaign against Law on Twitter makes him fair game.

There may be reasons to disagree with Heyman's analysis, but nothing in his tweet is a "smear" and the view that Carpenter deserved to be somewhere on the ballot was rather widely held. When did Law become immune from criticism? Hissey's fit seems a bit over the top.

Even moreso, I'm curious what cat fights like this will be like in 10, 15, 25 years, with whatever leap is in store thanks to technology's advances.

Anthony Giacalone predicted some angry young man will tell us we're all idiots for not realizing that Derek Lowe was the second best pitcher of his generation.

Post #28 in this thread (Okay, it was 3rd best.)

There may be reasons to disagree with Heyman's analysis, but nothing in his tweet is a "smear" and the view that Carpenter deserved to be somewhere on the ballot was rather widely held. When did Law become immune from criticism? Hissey's fit seems a bit over the top.

There's reasoned criticism, and then there's "you're dumb." Heyman's tweet falls into the latter category.

When did Law become immune from criticism?

When he wrote about the ABA for Mental Floss earlier this month, of course. Duh.

I didn't realize that writing the monthly newsletter for the Scott Boras corp. entitled Heyman to an awards ballot.

Hissey's fit

Heh.

There's reasoned criticism, and then there's "you're dumb." Heyman's tweet falls into the latter category.

I'm not a twitter person, but isn't that what tweets are all about? Tweets are more for momentary impressions and immediate brief reactions. As a "micro-blog," as I've heard them called, twitter isn't a format for analysis or reasoned argument. (That's one reason I despised the idea of congressmen writing tweets while listening to the state of the union speed, for instance.)

I disagree with Heyman, but (given the medium for the message) I don't really see it as a smear campaign. I find it more objectionable that mainstream writers and radio sports jockey picked up on the criticism and carried it to new heights.

I didn't realize that writing the monthly newsletter for the Scott Boras corp. entitled Heyman to an awards ballot.

I love how not being one of the 99% of reporters accusing Boras of being a child molester results in opprobrium.

There may be reasons to disagree with Heyman's analysis, but nothing in his tweet is a "smear" and the view that Carpenter deserved to be somewhere on the ballot was rather widely held. When did Law become immune from criticism? Hissey's fit seems a bit over the top.

a buck shot. nice. RT @miklasz Buck Martinez: “I worked with Keith Law in Toronto and he doesn’t have a grip on anything.”

This is the tweet in the link. It's at least a little more smeary.

Edit: Glancing through the rest of Heyman's twitter page, I don't really see any evidence of a campaign per se.

I'm not a twitter person, but isn't that what tweets are all about? Tweets are more for momentary impressions and immediate brief reactions. As a "micro-blog," as I've heard them called, twitter isn't a format for analysis or reasoned argument. (That's one reason I despised the idea of congressmen writing tweets while listening to the state of the union speed, for instance.)

This reminds me of the scene in "Talledega Nights" about the use of the phrase "with all due respect." Heyman's comment is either a smear or it isn't. The fact that it was a tweet doesn't matter. I tend to think that calling someone "dumb" in this context is pretty classless and obnoxious.

I love how not being one of the 99% of reporters accusing Boras of being a child molester results in opprobrium.

There's a middle ground between badmouthing Boras, the way some sportswriters do, and uncritically passing on whatever Boras says, the way Heyman does. The wise man chooses the middle path.

and tempers flared.

There's a middle ground between badmouthing Boras, the way some sportswriters do, and uncritically passing on whatever Boras says, the way Heyman does. The wise man chooses the middle path.

Heyman pretty obviously carries water for Boras. That's the price he pays to be in the loop and that's fine. I'm not required to take anything he writes at face value, though. Also, Heyman is a shitty analyst who makes up for that by being arrogant about it. He is a good rumor mongerer and for that I give him credit. I love the rumors in the hot stove season.

There's reasoned criticism, and then there's "you're dumb." Heyman's tweet falls into the latter category.

Actually, Heyman's falls more into the "your an idiot" category.

and tempers flared.

Do police believe alcohol was involved?

Try reading the ballot instructions next time, genius shankapotamus.

fixt?

Aren't there only three spots on the Cy Young ballot? I think the "this idiot left my guy off the ballot entirely" argument loses a lot of its rhetorical oomph in this case. The NL Cy Young seemed pretty widely viewed as a close three pitcher race. Some guys saw it as a close four person race instead, and guys were "left off the ballot" as a result.

a trained scout who has an MBA from Carnegie Mellon

This is funny. Or, rather, the idea that someone thinks of this as an impressive resume is funny.

Some guys saw it as a close four person race instead, and guys were "left off the ballot" as a result.

Two guys did, using a different set of criteria that are not widely accepted by the voting community as a whole, and in so doing they left off a guy who by most other measures pitched better than the guys they chose to include. And in justifying their decisions, both guys focused on one measure that ranked their guy the highest, which made it seem as though they didn't consider all of the evidence.

We rightly criticize people who justify decisions mostly on one statistic, when it's wins or RBIs. Should we not be allowed to criticize people who justify decisions mostly on one statistic just because it's more acceptable to the statistically-oriented community, like FIP (Law/Vasquez) or WHIP (Carroll/Haren)?

-- MWE

Hey until some 1 puts me on their Sigh Jung ballot they are missing what my old pal Omar Sharif calls a Diamond in the Ruff.

This is funny. Or, rather, the idea that someone thinks of this as an impressive resume is funny.

Former Assistant GM of a Major League Baseball team.

Sportswriters seem to think that they have a job because they know more about baseball than anyone else. They actually have a job because they write well. If they really knew a lot about baseball, they'd be getting paid by Major League Baseball teams.

Just looking at the twitter comment by Heyman, it doesn't actually mention Law or Carroll by name.

They actually have a job because they write well.

This is a joke, right?

If they really knew a lot about baseball, they'd be getting paid by Major League Baseball teams.

I have no idea, so this seems like a decent time to ask - how does the salary of most of the regular sports columnists compare to what's made by employees of MLB in such positions as Scout, Assistant GM, Coach, and so on?

I have no idea, so this seems like a decent time to ask - how does the salary of most of the regular sports columnists compare to what's made by employees of MLB in such positions as Scout, Assistant GM, Coach, and so on?

I think it's important to distinguish between the columnists, who make very good money (and are the most deserving of our wrath), and the beat writers, the guys who tend to do the voting and write about baseball the most, who make considerably less.

By the way, is the biggest problem with Heyman's tweet that he's stealing our shtick?

This is a joke, right?

For the most part, these guys write well. Not brilliantly, and not necessarily with an intelligent point, but they can write.

Two guys did, using a different set of criteria that are not widely accepted by the voting community as a whole, and in so doing they left off a guy who by most other measures pitched better than the guys they chose to include. And in justifying their decisions, both guys focused on one measure that ranked their guy the highest, which made it seem as though they didn't consider all of the evidence.

Not only this but Law intentionally used his vote as a sally in an ideological war in order to provoke precisely this reaction. If Law is going to be an ideological warrior then he deserves whatever criticism he gets.

We rightly criticize people who justify decisions mostly on one statistic, when it's wins or RBIs. Should we not be allowed to criticize people who justify decisions mostly on one statistic just because it's more acceptable to the statistically-oriented community, like FIP (Law/Vasquez) or WHIP (Carroll/Haren)?

Yes, we should. Especially WHIP, which is basically like OBP against. We wouldn't judge a hitter solely on his OBP, of course, and to judge a pitcher that way is at least as bad. On top of that, it's very easy to turn a pitcher's numbers into runs (apart from park and defense effects, which affect WHIP, too), but not as easy for a hitter. WHIP is largely worthless. FIP has some merit, but a lot of the difference between FIP and ERA is random stuff that indicates actual value, even if it's not repeatable, like pitching well with men on base.

We rightly criticize people who justify decisions mostly on one statistic, when it's wins or RBIs. Should we not be allowed to criticize people who justify decisions mostly on one statistic just because it's more acceptable to the statistically-oriented community, like FIP (Law/Vasquez) or WHIP (Carroll/Haren)?

No one is saying that Law and Carroll can't be criticized. The issue is Heyman calling them "dumb" and making no effort to engage them intelligently.

For the most part, these guys write well.

Apparently we have different standards for what constitutes "writing well". I mean, sure most sportswriters spell correctly and use correct grammar...

No one is saying that Law and Carroll can't be criticized. The issue is Heyman calling them "dumb" and making no effort to engage them intelligently.

There's some humor to Law and Carroll being hitched together in this, too. Their processes for deciding their respective votes didn't have much in common. They seem like very different guys, in general.

Just looking at the twitter comment by Heyman, it doesn't actually mention Law or Carroll by name.

Again, the "smear campaign" comment links this one:

a buck shot. nice. RT @miklasz Buck Martinez: “I worked with Keith Law in Toronto and he doesn’t have a grip on anything.”

I don't really see this as a big deal, but it does mention KLaw by name.

We rightly criticize people who justify decisions mostly on one statistic, when it's wins or RBIs. Should we not be allowed to criticize people who justify decisions mostly on one statistic just because it's more acceptable to the statistically-oriented community, like FIP (Law/Vasquez) or WHIP (Carroll/Haren)?

Absolutely and both are getting criticized here as far as I can tell (I didn't care for either vote myself).
But - that's beside the point, isn't it? Criticizing them is fine, but insulting them* in the process opens your own voting up for attack (or, at least, more so than it is by nature of the job).

* Possibly over perceived ideological grounds, as opposed to the choices themselves. How much flack are Heyman and co. giving the Cabrera MVP vote, which is more egregious?

FIP has some merit, but a lot of the difference between FIP and ERA is random stuff that indicates actual value, even if it's not repeatable, like pitching well with men on base.

Plus, repeatability isn't the issue - they're not voting for the 2011 award.

Does FIP consider all outside the park HR's as fielding-independent and all singles/doubles/triples as fielding-dependent? and if so, why?

How much flack are Heyman and co. giving the Cabrera MVP vote, which is more egregious?

There is one qualitative difference, that the dude in Seattle could've voted for Jeff Francoeur, and it wouldn't have changed who won the AL MVP. That's not the case for the NL Cy Young vote.

Not only this but Law intentionally used his vote as a sally in an ideological war in order to provoke precisely this reaction. If Law is going to be an ideological warrior then he deserves whatever criticism he gets.

He did? I thought I read his defense of his vote, but I may have missed where he said "Vasquez wasn't really the second best pitcher, but I just put him there to piss people off". In fact, what he said was:

As for Vazquez, he ranked ahead of Wainwright in the advanced metrics anyway, but I also gave him extra credit for pitching in the most difficult division in the NL, one in which he had to face two great offenses and only one patsy.

and

Carpenter's innings total was the main reason he ended up off my ballot. He pitched extremely well when on the mound, but not well enough to close the value gap between him and the three pitchers I listed, each of whom threw at least 27 innings more than Carpenter.

Seems to me like he didn't vote to provoke anything, but rather because he thought those three were the most deserving under his interpretation of the criteria for the award. How is this being an "ideological warrior"?

By the way, it seems like it would be a pretty easy calculation to add 26.2 replacement level innings to Carpenter's ERA and see if he still ends up better than Vasquez. If he does, it make the case for Vasquez a lot tougher.

How is this being an "ideological warrior"?

Because he doesn't agree with the consensus, clearly. So, naturally, the only possible reason is that he's trying to make an ideological statement and piss people off.

How is this being an "ideological warrior"?

Because I, like Gaelan, can see directly into others' minds, I can tell you that he intentionally used his comment in order to provoke precisely your reaction.

And you fell for it.

There is one qualitative difference, that the dude in Seattle could've voted for Jeff Francoeur, and it wouldn't have changed who won the AL MVP. That's not the case for the NL Cy Young vote.

If you give Carpenter the votes that Law gave to Vazquez (a second) and Carroll gave to Haren (a third), the order is unchanged in the CY vote: Lincecum's still first, Carpenter a closer second and Wainwright third.

I keep making this point because I think years from now, folks are going to talk about how Keith Law cost Chris Carpenter the Cy Young. And that's not true.

Seems to me like he didn't vote to provoke anything, but rather because he thought those three were the most deserving under his interpretation of the criteria for the award. How is this being an "ideological warrior"?

Not only that, in his ESPN interview he said that he viewed Vazquez, Carpenter, and Wainwright as extremely close and not worth arguing over in terms of rank preference. His ballot is getting blown way out of proportion.

Former Assistant GM of a Major League Baseball team.

I assume that's a Dwight Schrute joke. Keith Law was special assistant to the GM, not assistant GM.

and only one patsy.

Too mean.

We rightly criticize people who justify decisions mostly on one statistic, when it's wins or RBIs. Should we not be allowed to criticize people who justify decisions mostly on one statistic just because it's more acceptable to the statistically-oriented community, like FIP (Law/Vasquez) or WHIP (Carroll/Haren)?

As for Vazquez, he ranked ahead of Wainwright in the advanced metrics anyway,

It looks like Keith is using several "advanced metrics" instead of just one statistic, but it's really not clear. Keith should write a column on personal blog explaining his vote to a SABER crowd.

I assume that's a Dwight Schrute joke. Keith Law was special assistant to the GM, not assistant GM.

Next you're going to tell me that Law had a 'workspace', not an 'office'.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I just meant that the "left off the ballot" beef means less to me on a three person ballot than one with ten. Digging in on Law or Carroll is perfectly fine with me.

We rightly criticize people who justify decisions mostly on one statistic, when it's wins or RBIs. Should we not be allowed to criticize people who justify decisions mostly on one statistic just because it's more acceptable to the statistically-oriented community, like FIP (Law/Vasquez) or WHIP (Carroll/Haren)?

We can rightfully criticize anyone's opinion that we disagree with. But I don't think it's totally fair to chacterize the Law and Carroll decision as being based on only one statistic. Almost everyone agrees (including Carroll, Law, and their critics) that the top four or five pitchers were fairly close. They were all good pitchers, and almost anyone who ranks them will end up making some decisions based on one statistic to separate them. I don't see Carroll saying that WHIP is better than all other pitching stats, but rather he uses it to settle what might be close to a tie (at least in his mind). Other people may not put the same value on that statistic (I don't). I might not have put Vazquez second, but i don't think using FIP qualifies as something outside the range of reasonable opinions. Law's controversial decision, based on Heyman's twitter, is leaving Carpenter out; again, he bases that on the value of innings pitched. Liked someone said, above, the validity of that conclusion can be checked (I haven't done it, but if someone can challenge his calculation, that's worth a discussion). But I don't see Law saying that "innings pitched" is the sole statistic to utilize.

a buck shot. nice. RT @miklasz Buck Martinez: “I worked with Keith Law in Toronto and he doesn’t have a grip on anything.”

I saw that, and maybe I don't understand twitter enough, but how much of that is Law's opinion vs. Buck Martinez or miklasz? It is in the comment section of the tweet, and it appears that Martinez insults Law. I'm not sure if "A buck shot, nice" comes from Heyman or someone else. If it is, it seems like he is congratulating someone for being snarky. However, just reading the initial tweet, it wasn't clear to me that he even knew whom the two voters were when he made the twitter comment.

There is one qualitative difference, that the dude in Seattle could've voted for Jeff Francoeur, and it wouldn't have changed who won the AL MVP.

But the 1st place vote was the difference in Cabrera's one point edge for 4th place, which got him a $200K bonus according to published reports. There's certainly some potential for mischief in these bonus situations, even if this was just a single writer's peculiar perspective.

who are charged with preventing the opposing team from scoring as few runs as possible.

Well, if phrased properly, that is of course exactly what Carpenter did better than any other starter in the league. He led in ERA and ERA+ and gave up only one unearned run (which means he's going to lead in RA and RA+, presumably by even wider margins). Why the fact that he relied more on his defense to prevent runs or why he _might_ not be able to do it as well in the future should be held against him is not at all clear to me. As I pointed out in another thread, Carpenter 2009 was a prime Maddux season (except in IP -- which is a legit thing you can hold against Carpenter).

All that said, there are always some wacky CYA votes. Ryan Dempster got a couple of votes last year. Dice-K finished 4th in the AL last year with 167 IP (the 18-3 record). Mussina and Ervin Santana both got a couple of 3rd place votes. None of those votes have ever received the attention that these two have and they certainly haven't been bandied about by sportswriters as evidence of the voter's idiocy. (They may have been bandied about as evidence by us of the writers' idiocy but that's part of our charm.)

And of course this year a joker gave Verlander a first-place vote but that guy is getting off scot-free (is that an ethnic slur?).

a buck shot. nice. RT @miklasz Buck Martinez: “I worked with Keith Law in Toronto and he doesn’t have a grip on anything.”

I saw that, and maybe I don't understand twitter enough, but how much of that is Law's opinion vs. Buck Martinez or miklasz?

According to Keith, he's never spoken to Buck. A bit strange but their time didn't overlap much.

Heyman also responded to some twitters criticizing him, asking why Law's colleagues haven't stood up for him if they like him. He came across as an angry high school girl, IMO, and I think he has more problem with the "nerds" than there actual choices.

Because I, like Gaelan, can see directly into others' minds, I can tell you that he intentionally used his comment in order to provoke precisely your reaction.

No mind reading required, only basic literacy. You people are shamelessly defending the indefensible. We already covered this. Law's argument is a textbook case of arguing in bad faith.

[Edit] Removed gratuitous insult. Left the necessary insult.

The fact that you are unable to discern this is indicative of your lack of reason, education, and character.

Yeah, but at least he uses capital letters. ;-

Dice-K finished 4th in the AL last year with 167 IP (the 18-3 record)

And the 2.90 ERA. It was painful to watch, and it sure as hell isn't likely to be repeatable, but he did have pretty good run-prevention results.

Why the fact that he relied more on his defense to prevent runs or why he _might_ not be able to do it as well in the future should be held against him is not at all clear to me.

I can certainly see making an adjustment if one pitcher pitched in front of a good defense- and another pitcher a bad defense- if that can be qualified/quantified.

Of course I'm not sure how that's relevant in 2009 re Carpenter, he pitched in front of the same defense as Wainright and the Giants had an even better DER than the Cardinals, in fact the "candidate" who might have the best argument for being better than his ERA (due to his teammates defensive ineptitude) isn't any of the names being bandied about- it'd be Wandy R. Houston's DER was absolutely brutal.

Yeah, but at least he uses capital letters. ;-

Leave STEAGLES out of this :^x.

We already covered this. Law's argument is a textbook case of arguing in bad faith.

We've covered the flaws of FIP in assessing performance, but Law is claiming that his argument is more sophisticated than that.

No mind reading required, only basic literacy. You people are shamelessly defending the indefensible. We already covered this. Law's argument is a textbook case of arguing in bad faith.

How so, I disagree with Vasquez over Carpenter, but your argument seems to be the one in bad faith IMHO, either that or you are simply reading something into Law's argument that isn't there.

If they really knew a lot about baseball, they'd be getting paid by Major League Baseball teams.

Any number of statheads have found working for teams a frustrating experience.

In a related discussion Dan Szymborski suggested that consulting on a specific issue is the way to go.

EDIT: And then there's the financial side. I don't make great money, but considering job security issues and what have you, I'd want a fair amount more than I make right now.

Any way, just to share, this is how I saw the NL starters:
Tim Lincecum Nl 7.9
Chris Carpenter NL 7.1
Danny Haren NL 6.8
Adam Wainwright NL 6.7
Javier Vazquez NL 6.3

and AL:
Zack Greinke AL 8.4
Felix Hernandez AL 7.6
Roy Halladay AL 6.9
Justin Verlander AL 6.2
Jon Lester AL 5.5
C.C. Sabathia AL 5.5


So in my mind the most egregious single vote was the Verlander 1st place vote

This is a little off topic, but I had been under the impression that xFIP is generally considered the best predictive tool for a pitcher. Is that not the case?

I ask this because of all the criticism of Law's use of FIP to make a case for Vazquez.

I'm surprised that someone hasn't used Pitch f/x to come out with a better predictor of pitcher success. I think that K/9 is a proxy for velocity and BB/9 and HR/9 are proxies for command.

This is a little off topic, but I had been under the impression that xFIP is generally considered the best predictive tool for a pitcher. Is that not the case?

It is one of the better predictors of future success. However, it's not a great method by which to retroactively determine value, since (to my understanding) it doesn't take into consideration the timing of events.

Just because Wainwright & Carpenter played for the same team does not mean the team played the same defense behind them. We wouldn't be surprised if 2 pitchers from the same team received unequal run support.

It's just really hard separating defense and pitching, outside of strikeouts.

Thanks for the responses. Yeah, I can see FIP being not the best tool or assessing how a pitcher actually performed. What other predictors of pitchers do you prefer to xFIP? I think that's better than xERA.

What other predictors of pitchers do you prefer to xFIP? I think that's better than xERA.

tRA

I’m not going to focus on Keith Law, a trained scout who has an MBA from Carnegie Mellon, in this post, as R.J. Anderson already covered that angle beautifully.

He must be right -- he has an MBA!

(Note: I have been in numerous meetings in which this was advanced as a serious argument.)

(Note: I have been in numerous meetings in which this was advanced as a serious argument.)

Note: I have been in numerous meetings where the person who advanced that as a serious argument was greeted with a serious beating.

For the record, engineers tend to get a little grumpy when dealing with MBAs (or managers, or people, or pretty much anything that doesn't involve free food - we're a pretty crabby group as a whole).

Almost everyone agrees (including Carroll, Law, and their critics) that the top four or five pitchers were fairly close.

The consensus was that Lincecum, Wainright, and Carpenter were close, but that there was a gap after those three down to Vasquez, Haren, and Jurrjens.

Carroll never did a direct comparison between Carpenter and Haren; the only direct comparison that he did was between Carpenter and Wainright, after he'd already decided that Haren should have been on the ballot. The only statistic that he ever cited to support Haren's inclusion was WHIP.

Law may have said advanced "metrics", but the only one he ever cited to support his argument was fielding-based.

-- MWE

Note: I have been in numerous meetings where the person who advanced that as a serious argument was greeted with a serious beating.

That is the correct response, yes.

Law may have said advanced "metrics", but the only one he ever cited to support his argument was fielding-based.

And innings pitched. Which is a pretty good argument if you ask me.

Law may have said advanced "metrics", but the only one he ever cited to support his argument was fielding-based.

Actually I don't think he even cited any fielding based stats directly. He just said his ballot order result from his interpretation of "advanced metrics" which he used to assess performance based on factors known to be controllable by a pitcher. We're assuming FIP, xFIP or whatever he's doing.

Actually I don't think he even cited any fielding based stats directly.

he cites FIP and WAR when explaining why he voted for Lincecum, so that's presumably what he is referring to.

he cites FIP and WAR when explaining why he voted for Lincecum, so that's presumably what he is referring to.

Thanks for the info. I don't have an ESPN insider account so I've only seen snippets of his article justifying his vote. In any case, he's not basing his vote only off of FIP then in terms of advanced metrics.

Almost everyone agrees (including Carroll, Law, and their critics) that the top four or five pitchers were fairly close.

I don't think that's right. Almost everyone agrees that the top three pitchers were fairly close; Carroll and Law were in the small minority who thought another pitcher deserved to be in the mix.

It's kind of bizarre that the two new Web-based voters both departed most strongly from conventional wisdom, but did it in different ways and did it without being very persuasive to the advanced-metrics crowd.

Almost everyone agrees (including Carroll, Law, and their critics) that the top four or five pitchers were fairly close.

Almost everyone agrees that the top three pitchers were fairly close; Carroll and Law were in the small minority who thought another pitcher deserved to be in the mix.

Actually, Law did not think the top three pitchers were close. He ranked Lincecum as a clear and indisputable first and then the next three pitchers (Vazquez, Wainwright, and Carpenter) were very close in his mind.

I'm surprised that someone hasn't used Pitch f/x to come out with a better predictor of pitcher success. I think that K/9 is a proxy for velocity and BB/9 and HR/9 are proxies for command.

I guess it depends on how you're looking at it. In terms of run prevention, you could argue that velocity is a proxy for K/9 and command is a proxy for BB/9 and HR/9.

Rather than debate which team had the better DER, a more accurate approach would be to look at the actual DER behind each pitcher. From Hardball Times, DER in descending order:

Haren .733
Carpenter .731
Lincecum .718
Vazquez .717
Wainwright .704

Also, while I was looking at the Hardball Times stats, I noted the Pitching Runs Created (PRC), which is a stat I would put weight on if I were voting for a Cy Young. 2009 PRC:
Lincecum 137
Wainwright 126
Haren 121
Vazquez 120
Carpenter 119

That would seem to support the idea that Haren, Vazquez, and Carpenter were very close. And I don't think it indicates that Carroll and Law are out of line to pick either Haren or Vazquez over Carpenter.

Rather than debate which team had the better DER, a more accurate approach would be to look at the actual DER behind each pitcher. From Hardball Times, DER in descending order:

Haren .733
Carpenter .731
Lincecum .718
Vazquez .717
Wainwright .704

The Cards' DER was .696 according to THT. So was Carpenter much better than Wainwright in preventing hits on balls in play, or was he merely more fortunate? I actually like looking at the individual pitcher's DER to forecast future performance, but to me it just muddles the issue more in a discussion about actual (past) value.

I was trying to be helpful showing the individual DER ratios, since people seemed to be arguing over who had a lower team DER. Personally, I probably wouldn't rely on DER for this evaluation. The DER is too rough a measure of defensive performance, in my view. The DER doesn't take into account the types of balls in play, and the groundball pitchers would be expected to have a lower DER, all else equal. It is interesting though that Carpenter and Wainwright both had high groundball rates, but Wainwright's DER is quite a bit lower. If you want to exclude defensive differences, I would look at FIP or tRA or something like that.