C'mon people. Sometimes it really is that simple.

Cliff Lee: 2.41 ERA
Halladay: 2.81 ERA

More importantly,
Cliff Lee: 2.62 RA
Halladay: 3.27 RA

To make up the difference between the two of them, you'd need to supplement Lee's season with 20 2/3 innings in which he gave up 23 runs.

WPA/LI?? Give me a break.

"By all accounts, his is one of the best season’s over the last eight or nine years"

Except for, say, the method of accounting which attempts to determine how many runs a pitcher has saved his team.

Halladay has had a great season, and I'd bet lots of money that he'll be better going forward. But Lee has been the best pitcher in the AL this year, and it's silly to pretend otherwise.

I mean seriously, WPA/LI?

Sadly, I'm forced to agree. I think Halladay has had the far tougher schedule and knowing what I know now, I'd still take Halladay's 2008 over Lee's because I'm not sure how Lee would've fared pitching 124 innings against the Rays/Red Sox/Yankees/White Sox/Angels (he threw 46 IP against those clubs).

Lee has had the better statistical season but if I had to choose this year's edition of Halladay or Lee to pitch one game--I'm taking Halladay. The Boston Red Sox have been a juggernaut offensively and a team that leads the league in OBP and Halladay has a 2.56 ERA in five starts in just under 39 IP against them with an 0.92 BB/9 after walking three today (awful umpiring today).

I honestly don't think Lee would have fared as well had he Halladay's schedule.

Lee deserves the award but I am more impressed with Halladay's year.

I am also an incurable homer. </full disclosure>

Best Regards

John

Sure, he's faced tougher opponents. Is that worth .6 runs a game? I find that very difficult to believe. At some points, Occam's Razor wins out here. When you have to jump though a bunch of hoops to argue that it's a close call, then it's most likely not that tough a decision.

As for who I'd pick to pitch one game for me, obviously the answer is Halladay. That's because he's a better pitcher. But it's not a true talent Cy Young award, it's just the award for the guy who pitched the best in actual games this year.

And for what it's worth, in terms of R/G, the Yankees, Rays, and Angels are all in the bottom half of the AL. Still much better than the punchless teams like the M's, Royals, and A's. But just because they won a bunch of games doesn't make their offenses necessarily the best.

Also, when you're leading off with WPA/LI, I'm sorry, but I find it very difficult to take you seriously.

HR/9

Oh, and with today's outing, they're now virtually tied in K/BB ratio (5.29 v. 5.23). And while Halladay is ahead in WHIP, they're tied at 1.11 once you add in HBP.

Not that those matter all that much in the abstract, but when the case for Halladay is framed in those terms, and he still barely leads there, that should be a sign.

Oh, and Jacobs is a better hitters park than the Sky Dome, too.

Balrick: what exactly is it that you think WPA/LI does (and does not)?

I looked at the top of the first inning in each of Friday's games. There were 9 games in which no runs scored in that inning. The pitcher's WPA/LI in those innings ranged from +0.003 (Rays) to +0.079 (Indians, Royals). I'm sure there are scoreless innings out there in which the pitcher gets negative WPA/LI.

When a pitcher gets into a jam and then gets out of it, WPA/LI penalizes him compared to a guy who pitched a 1-2-3 inning. That's not appropriate for Cy Young consideration.

Yup, got one. Cubs at Cardinals, September 11. Wellemeyer allowed no runs in the top of the first, but his WPA/LI for that inning was -0.019.

When a pitcher gets into a jam and then gets out of it, WPA/LI penalizes him compared to a guy who pitched a 1-2-3 inning. That's not appropriate for Cy Young consideration.

Um, Why not? I know which pitcher I'd rather have.

As a Jays fan, the thing that annoys me is not the fact that Cliff Lee will win the Cy Young, but that K-Rod will probably finish second.

In the AL, 34 pitchers have thrown 160+ IP so far.

Of those, Halladay has the toughest average opponent OPS--.767. Conversely, Cliff Lee has faced the second easiest set of opponents, averaging a .732 OPS.

I'm not discussing whether WPA/LI is appropriate or not for Cy Young (I would lean toward not). I'm asking a more general question about what Balrick thinks that WPA/LI is trying to do.

***

Thank to fret for bringing up that game.

In that particular inning, the WPA totaled -.049 wins. Indeed, every scoreless top of the half will give the defense -.049 wins in WPA, regardless whether you had 3 or 6 batters. People who like just runs like that. Those who care about number of runners allowed don't.

WPA/LI for the game in question for the top of the 1st was +.019. (Plus is bad for the defense.) What WPA/LI does is treat each PA in isolation, unleverages WPA so that it scales the performance so that each PA is weighted at exactly 1.0, and weights each event (walk, homer, strikeout, etc) with respect to the game state (e.g., K are more impactful with runner on 3b and less than 2 outs than otherwise).

Is it necessarily a bad thing that a team that allows 2 runners out of 4 batter to reach base to show that they are below average (even though they got out of the inning scoreless)? I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. I don't know that it's necessarily a good thing.

But to dismiss WPA/LI would be preferable with reasoning behind it.

WPA/LI is exactly perfect for a hitter, if you believe that it matters when a hitter strikes out with runner on 3B and less than 2 outs, and you don't think that it's just another out. That is, you believe that the batter and pitcher realize that that situation requires a fairly strong change in approach. Only WPA/LI will give you what you need, under this belief premise. Linear Weights by the 24 base/out states is a close second.

WPA/LI is not as good for a pitcher, since a pitcher is his own team, and each PA should not necessarily be treated as if they are as impactful as any other PA. WPA/LI forces each PA to be worth exactly 1.0.

Lee's because I'm not sure how Lee would've fared pitching 124 innings against the Rays/Red Sox/Yankees/White Sox/Angels (he threw 46 IP against those clubs).

The Angels and the Rays are below average run scoring teams. The Yankees are slightly above average. Meanwhile, the Twins and the Tigers are third and fourth in the AL in run scoring, and Halladay hasn't faced the Tigers while only throwing 6.2 innings against the Twins while Lee has thrown 47 IP against those teams. Put Halladay in the AL Central, and he has to face those teams more.

Halladay has faced tougher hitters (about a .035 in Quality OpOPS according to BP), but other than the Red Sox, it isn't coming from the teams you mentioned -- it is from the O's and the Rangers, plus the fact how much Lee has faced the Royals.

plus the fact how much Lee has faced the Royals.

The Royals, the AL team with the 5th best OPS vs. lefties?

These are the kinds of problems that occur when you torture the stats.

As a Jays fan, the thing that annoys me is not the fact that Cliff Lee will win the Cy Young, but that K-Rod will probably finish second.

Save number 60 is in the books. Four-run lead, one out recorded.

Maybe Halladay can have the American League Cy Young and Lee can have the National League one since they are not a "Major" league anymore.

The Royals, the AL team with the 5th best OPS vs. lefties?

I quoted BP's numbers; I am almost positive that the difference in the Quality OpOPS is because of the difference in the amount of playing time with teams I cited -- I don't think BP makes any adjustments for handedness (they don't give much of an explanation of their methodology). I didn't realize that the Royals hit that well against lefities, although 5th best in the AL is only about .025 points of OPS above average vs LHP -- however, before we go to far with that, is the quality of LHP the Royals have faced equal to what the rest of the league has faced?

I quoted BP's numbers; I am almost positive that the difference in the Quality OpOPS is because of the difference in the amount of playing time with teams I cited -- I don't think BP makes any adjustments for handedness (they don't give much of an explanation of their methodology). I didn't realize that the Royals hit that well against lefities, although 5th best in the AL is only about .025 points of OPS above average vs LHP -- however, before we go to far with that, is the quality of LHP the Royals have faced equal to what the rest of the league has faced?

I think just asking that question is proving BLB's main point? I'm sure if you waterboard the stats enough you can get them to say exactly what you want them to say and make a "hey it's close enough, if you squint just the right way, kind of case" with the information. Or you can just reread Baldrick's Post No. 1 and realize that's the real crux of the debate.*

Edit: Upon rereading, I kind of implied that's what YOU bads85 are trying to do by asking the question, and I really don't want to impugn your motives. Consider the "you" plural.

WPA/LI is..... Win Probability Added / Leverage Index?

I have to say, and I'm not being haughty or anything (or not trying to be), but if you're tossing out stuff that I can't even remember seeing here, then you're going to have a problem selling it to almost anyone. I've seen WPA and LI, of course, if they're what I mentioned above. I've not seen them together like this, though, even though I'm pretty sure I see where he's going with it. But doesn't WPA by its very nature include LI? Or is the goal to context neutralize the WPA? And if it's that, what's the point of using WPA, then?

I can see a benefit in measuring actual production while netting for varying levels of opportunity, but I don't see how it has a place in MVP/CYA voting. Either you want to neutralize (most people here, seemingly) or you want to focus on what the actual outcome in full context was (Rauseo, among others.) Doing both seems tautologically unsound.

WPA has two components: one is performance by game state, and the other is Leveraged Impact.

A bases loaded tie game ninth inning would count a PA say at 10 times more than a random PA, while a PA in a blowout game would count a PA at close to zero. That's Leverage Index. On its own, people like it as a descriptive measure of situation.

That same situation would say that a walk is as good as a HR and leads to the same amount of impact (walkoff win).

You can take the win impact of that situation (+.054 wins for a safe event, regardless of walk or HR, and -.027 wins for an out event) and multiply it by the LI to give you WPA.

Now, we know that the walk has, on average, +.030 win impact. In some situations (1B open, 2 outs) it is worth alot less, and in some situations (bases loaded) it is worth more, and in even more situations it attains its maximum value (see above, worth same as HR).

So, WPA/LI ensures that the win value of the walk is centered around +.030 wins, and will max out at +.054 wins (or so).

It is only when you take WPA/LI and multiply it by LI that you start getting into crazy WPA talk (all of a sudden, a walk add +.540 wins, and people go crazy that one event can have that much impact).

Therefore, any misgivings one has with WPA is completely undone by WPA/LI.

And WPA/LI can be exactly described as wOBA by Game State, as each PA is guaranteed to be worth 1.00 weight.

If you still have misigivings on WPA/LI, basically, I've done a bad job of explaining it. In no way shape or form should misgivings of WPA carry over to WPA/LI. If you can at least accept that, then we can move on.

I quoted BP's numbers; I am almost positive that the difference in the Quality OpOPS is because of the difference in the amount of playing time with teams I cited -- I don't think BP makes any adjustments for handedness (they don't give much of an explanation of their methodology). I didn't realize that the Royals hit that well against lefities, although 5th best in the AL is only about .025 points of OPS above average vs LHP -- however, before we go to far with that, is the quality of LHP the Royals have faced equal to what the rest of the league has faced?

and that should factor in, if people are going to push.Halladay has faced tougher hitters (about a .035 in Quality OpOPS according to BP), but other than the Red Sox, it isn't coming from the teams you mentioned -- it is from the O's and the Rangers, plus the fact how much Lee has faced the Royals. which is making a big deal about a .035 difference, ignoring the .025 difference is ridiculous. either don't worry about either the point .035 or the .025 or figure them both into the equation. Platoon difference is a big deal.

Personally I think a .035 opponent ops difference isn't a big deal and think this campaign to get Halladay the Cy Young is a disservice to both Halladay and Lee, and really makes stat guys look small and petty. And I will have to join the chorus of people that will die a little when Krod gets the second or third place vote.

I think just asking that question is proving BLB's main point? I'm sure if you waterboard the stats enough you can get them to say exactly what you want them to say and make a "hey it's close enough, if you squint just the right way, kind of case" with the information. Or you can just reread Baldrick's Post No. 1 and realize that's the real crux of the debate.*

Thanks, SoSH, that was what I was getting at. I'm not saying KC's OPS vs. lefties is a big point of Lee's favor or anything. I just think that once you start breaking down the stats on an opponent by opponent basis, you start to miss the forest for the trees. Do we need to take the next step to break down Lee and Halladay's individual starts to see what guys on the other team were getting a day off?

Comparing their opponents is interesting. But I think it'd be a mistake to base your voting on a major award like the Cy Young due to it.

Tango, I understand what you're saying, but that just reads to me like it's exactly what I thought it was. And I still don't get what the point is of WPA/LI in awards voting. The extremes measure something "actual". One is the context-free production, and one is the context-specific. All centering the value around the context-free but allowing variance for context (like WPA/LI) does is put you in the middle. What's the use?