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...
Clemens averaged @6.5 IP/start while RJ averaged @7 IP/start. Is that much of a difference?? For someone that rarely got past 6 IP, it's quite surprising that he averaged .5 IP more than that. For someone that rarely got past the 6th, he had 5 starts of less than 6 IP, 5 starts of exactly 6 IP, and 22 starts of over 6 IP.
Keep in mind that I agree that RJ should have won it but I am not surprised or angry that Clemens got it.
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...
Clemens averaged @6.5 IP/start while RJ averaged @7 IP/start. Is that much of a difference?? For someone that rarely got past 6 IP, it's quite surprising that he averaged .5 IP more than that. For someone that rarely got past the 6th, he had 5 starts of less than 6 IP, 5 starts of exactly 6 IP, and 22 starts of over 6 IP.
Keep in mind that I agree that RJ should have won it but I am not surprised or angry that Clemens got it.
your right, I was wrong about the 6th inning figure...more like the 7th inning figure. I didnt realky look at the stats, because they wanted a non-statistical arguement. but looking at it, i didnt realize the rocket only had 1 start he went past the 7th inning...and while johnson's average was about 7 innings per start, it still makes a big difference, since it gave him 31 more innings (and 2 more games). that doesnt sound like much, but thats about 4-5 games worth, and days off the pen. Still, the fact still remains, clemens had clauses, and the stros were quite conservative in his use. Which is also why I still argue Oswalt was that staff's mvp.
TheYanks04 wrote:Had RJ won 22 games and not lost as many as he did, he likely would have taken the award.
From the article in the first post of this thread:
The Big Unit went 16-14 with a 2.60 ERA and a major league-leading 290 strikeouts -- Arizona scored two runs or fewer in 17 of his 35 starts.
In only 18 starts did Arizona score more than 3 runs. 18 total!
So RJ needed an era under 2 in order to win the Cy this year.
Not sure why he's penalized for that.
Personally, Clemens had a good year. I give him that. He pitched well and certainly should have been up for consideration.
As to who deserves the award, that's RJ. I don't care what set of numbers, stats, or situations you want to look at, RJ was the best pitcher in the NL last year and he should have taken home the trophy.
Ask and manager in the NL who they would want on the mound right now. That would be RJ.
Ask any hitter in the NL who they would not want to face right now. That would be RJ.
There's just no way around it.
Even the "pressure" factor is irrelevant. Clemens pitched some tough games down the line, but RJ went in knowing that if he gave up 2 runs in 9 innings they would lose. At least Clemens knew the offense had a chance to bail him out should he stink. RJ was left out to dry. Not to mention how bad the team stunk and it would only be worse if RJ couldn't pull a win here or there.
Bottom line: Clemens had a good year, but RJ deserved the hardware.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison wrote:As to who deserves the award, that's RJ. I don't care what set of numbers, stats, or situations you want to look at, RJ was the best pitcher in the NL last year and he should have taken home the trophy.
Ask and manager in the NL who they would want on the mound right now. That would be RJ.
Ask any hitter in the NL who they would not want to face right now. That would be RJ.
There's just no way around it.
Even the "pressure" factor is irrelevant. Clemens pitched some tough games down the line, but RJ went in knowing that if he gave up 2 runs in 9 innings they would lose. At least Clemens knew the offense had a chance to bail him out should he stink. RJ was left out to dry. Not to mention how bad the team stunk and it would only be worse if RJ couldn't pull a win here or there.
Bottom line: Clemens had a good year, but RJ deserved the hardware.
TheYanks04 wrote:Had RJ won 22 games and not lost as many as he did, he likely would have taken the award.
From the article in the first post of this thread:
The Big Unit went 16-14 with a 2.60 ERA and a major league-leading 290 strikeouts -- Arizona scored two runs or fewer in 17 of his 35 starts.
In only 18 starts did Arizona score more than 3 runs. 18 total!
So RJ needed an era under 2 in order to win the Cy this year.
Not sure why he's penalized for that.
Personally, Clemens had a good year. I give him that. He pitched well and certainly should have been up for consideration.
As to who deserves the award, that's RJ. I don't care what set of numbers, stats, or situations you want to look at, RJ was the best pitcher in the NL last year and he should have taken home the trophy.
Ask and manager in the NL who they would want on the mound right now. That would be RJ.
Ask any hitter in the NL who they would not want to face right now. That would be RJ.
There's just no way around it.
Even the "pressure" factor is irrelevant. Clemens pitched some tough games down the line, but RJ went in knowing that if he gave up 2 runs in 9 innings they would lose. At least Clemens knew the offense had a chance to bail him out should he stink. RJ was left out to dry. Not to mention how bad the team stunk and it would only be worse if RJ couldn't pull a win here or there.
Bottom line: Clemens had a good year, but RJ deserved the hardware.
I don't think we're upset because RJ got snubbed. That's a given, it happens with all MLB awards, they never seem to go to the right players. I think it's mostly disbelief that people here actually believe Rocket deserved the CY after seeing the facts.
"Jack, will you call me, if you're able?"
"I've got your phone number written, in the back of my Bible."
TheYanks04 wrote:Had RJ won 22 games and not lost as many as he did, he likely would have taken the award.
From the article in the first post of this thread:
The Big Unit went 16-14 with a 2.60 ERA and a major league-leading 290 strikeouts -- Arizona scored two runs or fewer in 17 of his 35 starts.
In only 18 starts did Arizona score more than 3 runs. 18 total!
So RJ needed an era under 2 in order to win the Cy this year.
Not sure why he's penalized for that.
Personally, Clemens had a good year. I give him that. He pitched well and certainly should have been up for consideration.
As to who deserves the award, that's RJ. I don't care what set of numbers, stats, or situations you want to look at, RJ was the best pitcher in the NL last year and he should have taken home the trophy.
Ask and manager in the NL who they would want on the mound right now. That would be RJ.
Ask any hitter in the NL who they would not want to face right now. That would be RJ.
There's just no way around it.
Even the "pressure" factor is irrelevant. Clemens pitched some tough games down the line, but RJ went in knowing that if he gave up 2 runs in 9 innings they would lose. At least Clemens knew the offense had a chance to bail him out should he stink. RJ was left out to dry. Not to mention how bad the team stunk and it would only be worse if RJ couldn't pull a win here or there.
Bottom line: Clemens had a good year, but RJ deserved the hardware.
great post. I think that really sums it up. Thats insane how perfect randy had to be just to get those 16 wins.
this is really stupid. after this, does anyone really doubt that Rico is miles ahead of these writers when it comes to intelligence.
check out this thread to see how completely dominant RJ was this year.
as for the win-loss record which is completely irrelevant anyways when it comes to judging pitchers, RJ was 13-2 when the D-Backs scored more than two runs while he was on the mound. in the games RJ lost, he had 1.8 runs of support. Mad also makes some very good points.
[size=10]Manny Ramirez....$20 million
Pedro Martinez....$17.5 million
Curt Schilling...$12 million (and a $2 million bonus)
Never hearing a Yankee fan chant 1918 again...priceless. [/size]
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by 
