Cy Clemens - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Cy Clemens

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby pitcherintherye » Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:03 am

TheYanks04 wrote:The self proclaimed superiority of the Jamesian stat heads never ceases to amaze me. They know better than the baseball writers, they know better than the fans, they know better than the guys playing or coaching the game, they know better than the veteran's committee...please. Go back to the computer printouts and keep on dreaming for a world run by geeks detached from reality.


you've seem to already generalized our arguement to be purely stat-based..which it is not. you've also seem to have generalized that some of us see the game striclty through the rose-colored glasses of rotostats and fantasy. But some of us do acutally play the game, and none claim the hubris of knowing 'more' than the sports writers...this is a criticism of the game - no one is fallible, just beacuse sports writers say so, doesn't make it right. Make sure to attack the statements made, not the individuals.
"I put the 'K' in chaos..."

"but there's no K in chaos"

"oh...figures"
pitcherintherye
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor


Posts: 73
Joined: 7 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Tavish » Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:14 am

TheYanks04 wrote:The self proclaimed superiority of the Jamesian stat heads never ceases to amaze me. They know better than the baseball writers, they know better than the fans, they know better than the guys playing or coaching the game, they know better than the veteran's committee...please. Go back to the computer printouts and keep on dreaming for a world run by geeks detached from reality.


Well there are quite a few Jamesian stat heads that are baseball writers (actually thats the basic idea of Sabermetrics), they are all over management, and many of them are even fans of baseball. I can't argue with the Veteran's Committee, any group of people whose job it is to appease the dead are ok in my book.

The problem most of us geeks have is the same thing that you have already mentioned.

They vote based on what they interpret to be valuable in REAL baseball.


Awards with such a wide open set of criteria is real easy to criticize. The criteria is one step above "Vote for the pitcher you think has the coolest name". The award criteria doesn't even mention anything about picking the most valuable. Quite often a pitcher will do better in the MVP Award voting than they do in the Cy Young award voting.

While us stat heads have to try and argue things with tangible proof, the REAL baseball fans get to simply hide behind words like valuable.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11071
(Past Year: 23)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Lofunzo » Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:15 am

pitcherintherye wrote:
TheYanks04 wrote:The self proclaimed superiority of the Jamesian stat heads never ceases to amaze me. They know better than the baseball writers, they know better than the fans, they know better than the guys playing or coaching the game, they know better than the veteran's committee...please. Go back to the computer printouts and keep on dreaming for a world run by geeks detached from reality.


you've seem to already generalized our arguement to be purely stat-based..which it is not. you've also seem to have generalized that some of us see the game striclty through the rose-colored glasses of rotostats and fantasy. But some of us do acutally play the game, and none claim the hubris of knowing 'more' than the sports writers...this is a criticism of the game - no one is fallible, just beacuse sports writers say so, doesn't make it right. Make sure to attack the statements made, not the individuals.


Both are good points but I will add this.......The argument here is entirely stat based. What other argument is there here?? That is a problem when you discuss these things on a fantasy site. Fantasy sports are entirely number driven and sometimes, that leaks into our arguments.
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Postby pitcherintherye » Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:17 am

Lofunzo wrote:
pitcherintherye wrote:
TheYanks04 wrote:The self proclaimed superiority of the Jamesian stat heads never ceases to amaze me. They know better than the baseball writers, they know better than the fans, they know better than the guys playing or coaching the game, they know better than the veteran's committee...please. Go back to the computer printouts and keep on dreaming for a world run by geeks detached from reality.


you've seem to already generalized our arguement to be purely stat-based..which it is not. you've also seem to have generalized that some of us see the game striclty through the rose-colored glasses of rotostats and fantasy. But some of us do acutally play the game, and none claim the hubris of knowing 'more' than the sports writers...this is a criticism of the game - no one is fallible, just beacuse sports writers say so, doesn't make it right. Make sure to attack the statements made, not the individuals.


Both are good points but I will add this.......The argument here is entirely stat based. What other argument is there here?? That is a problem when you discuss these things on a fantasy site. Fantasy sports are entirely number driven and sometimes, that leaks into our arguments.


well, i guess i tried to speak for everyone when i said it wasnt entirely stat based. Fine, let me restate, my arguement isn't entirely stat based.
"I put the 'K' in chaos..."

"but there's no K in chaos"

"oh...figures"
pitcherintherye
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor


Posts: 73
Joined: 7 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Tavish » Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:27 am

The big difference between the two is not in the absolute number of wins that each got, but in their winning percentages. Clemens won 14 games more than he lost! That just doesn't happen year in and year out. Obviously, he did what he had to do to win the vast majority of the games he pitched. How often does a pitcher post a winning percentage of better than .800?

Granted, if you switched Clemens and Johnson and made them pitch for each other's teams last season, Johnson would have won the Cy Young award. But you can't arbitrarily penalize Clemens just for being on a better team. (And remember, Houston was 4 games under .500 on August 15, and just 22 games over .500 at the end of the season!) 18-4 is still a great season, even on a good team.


You are right you can't arbitrarily penalize Clemens for being on a good team, but you are turning around and arbitrarily penalizing RJ for pitching on a bad team. An .800 WP is really pretty common. Pretty much every year there is at least one player who is over that rate (1989 was the last season without one). How often does a player finish the season with a WP over .500 on a team that finished anywhere near a .315 WP? RJ's wins accounted for nearly one-third of the D-Back's wins. 18-4 is a great season on a good team. 16-14 on one of the worst teams in history is even better IMO.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11071
(Past Year: 23)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby slomo007 » Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:34 am

Tavish wrote:RJ's wins accounted for nearly one-third of the D-Back's wins. 18-4 is a great season on a good team. 16-14 on one of the worst teams in history is even better IMO.


You hit the nail on the head there. I never realized how scary those numbers were until just now. Great points Tavish.
slomo007
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicEagle Eye
Posts: 11960
Joined: 31 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Lofunzo » Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:46 am

pitcherintherye wrote:
Lofunzo wrote:
pitcherintherye wrote:
TheYanks04 wrote:The self proclaimed superiority of the Jamesian stat heads never ceases to amaze me. They know better than the baseball writers, they know better than the fans, they know better than the guys playing or coaching the game, they know better than the veteran's committee...please. Go back to the computer printouts and keep on dreaming for a world run by geeks detached from reality.


you've seem to already generalized our arguement to be purely stat-based..which it is not. you've also seem to have generalized that some of us see the game striclty through the rose-colored glasses of rotostats and fantasy. But some of us do acutally play the game, and none claim the hubris of knowing 'more' than the sports writers...this is a criticism of the game - no one is fallible, just beacuse sports writers say so, doesn't make it right. Make sure to attack the statements made, not the individuals.


Both are good points but I will add this.......The argument here is entirely stat based. What other argument is there here?? That is a problem when you discuss these things on a fantasy site. Fantasy sports are entirely number driven and sometimes, that leaks into our arguments.


well, i guess i tried to speak for everyone when i said it wasnt entirely stat based. Fine, let me restate, my arguement isn't entirely stat based.


Please tell me the non stat-based arguments for RJ here. I am genuinely interested in hearing them.
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Postby slomo007 » Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:52 am

Lofunzo wrote:
pitcherintherye wrote:
Lofunzo wrote:
pitcherintherye wrote:
TheYanks04 wrote:The self proclaimed superiority of the Jamesian stat heads never ceases to amaze me. They know better than the baseball writers, they know better than the fans, they know better than the guys playing or coaching the game, they know better than the veteran's committee...please. Go back to the computer printouts and keep on dreaming for a world run by geeks detached from reality.


you've seem to already generalized our arguement to be purely stat-based..which it is not. you've also seem to have generalized that some of us see the game striclty through the rose-colored glasses of rotostats and fantasy. But some of us do acutally play the game, and none claim the hubris of knowing 'more' than the sports writers...this is a criticism of the game - no one is fallible, just beacuse sports writers say so, doesn't make it right. Make sure to attack the statements made, not the individuals.


Both are good points but I will add this.......The argument here is entirely stat based. What other argument is there here?? That is a problem when you discuss these things on a fantasy site. Fantasy sports are entirely number driven and sometimes, that leaks into our arguments.


well, i guess i tried to speak for everyone when i said it wasnt entirely stat based. Fine, let me restate, my arguement isn't entirely stat based.


Please tell me the non stat-based arguments for RJ here. I am genuinely interested in hearing them.


I'm sure many pitchers would say that it's tougher to pitch well in a meaningless game than it is in a meaningful game. After the trade deadline, Randy was pitching for nothing but pride. He is not a FA, and plus, everyone knows what he can do anyways, so why did he even have to try? Maybe to get to 300 wins, but chances are slim he'll get there. I think he was doing it mostly for pride, whereas Clemens was doing it for a Ring (which is also a good reason).
slomo007
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicEagle Eye
Posts: 11960
Joined: 31 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Transmogrifier » Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:59 am

This is silly. Couldn't you also say, with some merit, that it's harder to pitch for a team going nowhere because: A) you have the pressure to pitch a perfect game every time because your team won't score runs, and B) it's hard to "get up" for it?

Look, RJ, by any measure you can think up, had a better season. If you want to change the award to Most Valuable Pitcher--not best--than I still think Clemens doesn't win.
I'm back. Sorta.

Do not boo Johnny.
Transmogrifier
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 7181
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: No taxation without Representation!

Postby pitcherintherye » Wed Nov 10, 2004 1:02 am

Lofunzo wrote:
pitcherintherye wrote:
Lofunzo wrote:
pitcherintherye wrote:
TheYanks04 wrote:The self proclaimed superiority of the Jamesian stat heads never ceases to amaze me. They know better than the baseball writers, they know better than the fans, they know better than the guys playing or coaching the game, they know better than the veteran's committee...please. Go back to the computer printouts and keep on dreaming for a world run by geeks detached from reality.


you've seem to already generalized our arguement to be purely stat-based..which it is not. you've also seem to have generalized that some of us see the game striclty through the rose-colored glasses of rotostats and fantasy. But some of us do acutally play the game, and none claim the hubris of knowing 'more' than the sports writers...this is a criticism of the game - no one is fallible, just beacuse sports writers say so, doesn't make it right. Make sure to attack the statements made, not the individuals.


Both are good points but I will add this.......The argument here is entirely stat based. What other argument is there here?? That is a problem when you discuss these things on a fantasy site. Fantasy sports are entirely number driven and sometimes, that leaks into our arguments.


well, i guess i tried to speak for everyone when i said it wasnt entirely stat based. Fine, let me restate, my arguement isn't entirely stat based.


Please tell me the non stat-based arguments for RJ here. I am genuinely interested in hearing them.


I didnt like the fact that clemens' starts were limited to a pitch count, he rarely got passed the 6th, and his schedule was geared towards pitching at home. He was pampered in my book, which was alright, since it was part of his deal with the stros...over all I thought Roy Oswalt was that team's mvp - he had to pitch through tough innings, high pitch counts and injures.
Randy didn't have such luxuries like clemens had - he started games and intended on finishing them, in short, he did more with much much less. Then ofcourse there's the statistical arguments...
"I put the 'K' in chaos..."

"but there's no K in chaos"

"oh...figures"
pitcherintherye
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor


Posts: 73
Joined: 7 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 1:41 hours
(and 91 days)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact