Cy Clemens - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Cy Clemens

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Lofunzo » Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:31 am

The funny thing is that I was arguing with someone tonight at the bar why RJ should have won the award over Clemens and he stormed off. :-b
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 Lofunzo » Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:32 am

The funny thing is that I was arguing with someone at the bar tonight why RJ should have won it over Clemens and he stormed off. :-b
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

Headliner

Postby LTMac » Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:10 pm

I know that everyone has moved on now to Santana vs. Schilling, and I can't wait to read those posts (I haven't yet). But one final thought about the NL Cy Young Award.

I once challenged a friend of mine to make a list of the 20 players in baseball history that you had to include in any history of major league baseball. This is not the same as a list of the 20 greatest players. In some ways, I think it's actually a more interesting question. But the point of the exercise is to think about who made the biggest mark on the game over the course of its history.

If you focus at the season level, you can ask a similar question about hitters and pitchers, as in "Which pitcher made the biggest mark in the NL in 2004?" Or, put another way, what headline would you write if you were writing a story about NL pitchers in 2004? I think the headline would look something like: "Clemens leads Astros to the post-season with stellar performance." And the sub-title would be "Johnson's perfect game, dominant season wasted on the Diamondbacks." It's hard for me to imagine that Johnson would capture the headline and Clemens would be the afterthought. I think the Cy Young voting is something like trying to write a headline about the great pitching performances that took place in the league during a given year. It's not necessarily about the best pitching performance, although it often is, but it is about the one that deserves the biggest headline.
LTMac
Little League Legend
Little League Legend


Posts: 22
Joined: 1 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Headliner

Postby DK » Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:09 pm

LTMac wrote:I know that everyone has moved on now to Santana vs. Schilling, and I can't wait to read those posts (I haven't yet). But one final thought about the NL Cy Young Award.

I once challenged a friend of mine to make a list of the 20 players in baseball history that you had to include in any history of major league baseball. This is not the same as a list of the 20 greatest players. In some ways, I think it's actually a more interesting question. But the point of the exercise is to think about who made the biggest mark on the game over the course of its history.

If you focus at the season level, you can ask a similar question about hitters and pitchers, as in "Which pitcher made the biggest mark in the NL in 2004?" Or, put another way, what headline would you write if you were writing a story about NL pitchers in 2004? I think the headline would look something like: "Clemens leads Astros to the post-season with stellar performance." And the sub-title would be "Johnson's perfect game, dominant season wasted on the Diamondbacks." It's hard for me to imagine that Johnson would capture the headline and Clemens would be the afterthought. I think the Cy Young voting is something like trying to write a headline about the great pitching performances that took place in the league during a given year. It's not necessarily about the best pitching performance, although it often is, but it is about the one that deserves the biggest headline.


A perfect game is an afterthought?

There are division winners every year. A perfect game is something that comes along rarely, if at all.

The headline of the year has to be RJ's perfect game. It's just unheard of for a 42-year-old.
Image
DK
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 9533
Joined: 22 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: on deck

Postby FatGuyWithAMullet » Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:38 am

This is just compensation for getting screwed by Bob Welch.
FatGuyWithAMullet
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 850
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Uranus

Postby HOOTIE » Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:05 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.


Statheads? Geeks? I gotta laugh everytime i hear these phrases. It seems some people are afraid of progress and change? I would love to hear why writer's and fans are in the know? Writer's went to journalism school. They were taught to write stories and give interviews. This somehow now makes them experts? I predicted Roger would win. 18-4 is going to beat 16-14 everytime. RJ was the best pitcher in the NL. This has yet to be discredited. The criteria for CY says best pitcher in league. RJ should have won, but Roger isn't a horrible choice. You just have to understand how writer's think. What i would like to see happen, is each writer has to explain his vote. Did he decide by era, record, drawing from a hat? I would be willing to bet very little time goes into the voting. Here's other things to consider. The vote is subjective. They hold grudges. If a player is rude, or refuses interviews, some writer's will keep this in mind. A quick glance.

ERA
rj 2.60
sheets 2.70
clemens 2.98

ERC (component era), stimate what a pitcher's era should be.
rj 1.83
sheets 2.38
clemens 2.76

DIPS
rj 2.44
sheets 2.75
clemens 3.21

RS (run support per 9)
rj 3.99
3.53
clemens 4.79

Not only was RJ the best, Sheets actually beat Roger too. Records depend on,
run support
pitching performance
bullpen
defense

One more quick note. RJ had 31.1 more innings, yet both he Roger had 71 earned runs. Means RJ had 94 more outs, while giving up the same amount of runs. You decide. Roger won on name and record. Not a horrible choice, but not the nl best pitcher.
Smells Like Teen Spirit
HOOTIE
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe Ranker
Posts: 15115
(Past Year: 297)
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pearl Jam country, right next door to Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains.

Postby FatGuyWithAMullet » Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:50 am

HOOTIE 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.


Statheads? Geeks? I gotta laugh everytime i hear these phrases. It seems some people are afraid of progress and change? I would love to hear why writer's and fans are in the know? Writer's went to journalism school. They were taught to write stories and give interviews. This somehow now makes them experts? I predicted Roger would win. 18-4 is going to beat 16-14 everytime. RJ was the best pitcher in the NL. This has yet to be discredited. The criteria for CY says best pitcher in league. RJ should have won, but Roger isn't a horrible choice. You just have to understand how writer's think. What i would like to see happen, is each writer has to explain his vote. Did he decide by era, record, drawing from a hat? I would be willing to bet very little time goes into the voting. Here's other things to consider. The vote is subjective. They hold grudges. If a player is rude, or refuses interviews, some writer's will keep this in mind. A quick glance.


I'm guessing you don't know much about the BBWAA if you just consider them people who "were taught to write stories and give interviews". I'd love for you to explain the exact criteria of the MVP and Cy Young as to enlighten the BBWAA and everyone else in the dark since they obviously had no access to these numbers.

I can't help but chuckle at your "It seems some people are afraid of progress and change? I would love to hear why writer's and fans are in the know?" line. It just further perpetuates the typical stathead hogwash. When Bill James started out he cut, pasted and compiled every box score from his Lawrence, KS newspaper, and every like-minded person would of been forced to do the same. Now you just have to go to Google and you can find resources like Retrosheet and other tools that make available to the average fan what was once was out of their reach, so for your typical "stathead" sabermetrics feels like more of a revolution than it is - because now they, the common fan, can research through baseball related questions for themselves with the help of the tools, processes and data that the sabermetricians have provided. In other words, Bill James understands statistics. However a lot of people who tout themselves as stats people are only parrotts of a book or a website and have little understanding of the data that they purport to be discussing, the methodology used to gather/create it, or how to analyze it at any level of significance.

Do we have any actuaries, or people with significant advanced statistics skills around here?
FatGuyWithAMullet
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 850
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Uranus

Postby LBJackal » Fri Nov 12, 2004 3:57 pm

FatGuyWithAMullet wrote:
HOOTIE 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.


Statheads? Geeks? I gotta laugh everytime i hear these phrases. It seems some people are afraid of progress and change? I would love to hear why writer's and fans are in the know? Writer's went to journalism school. They were taught to write stories and give interviews. This somehow now makes them experts? I predicted Roger would win. 18-4 is going to beat 16-14 everytime. RJ was the best pitcher in the NL. This has yet to be discredited. The criteria for CY says best pitcher in league. RJ should have won, but Roger isn't a horrible choice. You just have to understand how writer's think. What i would like to see happen, is each writer has to explain his vote. Did he decide by era, record, drawing from a hat? I would be willing to bet very little time goes into the voting. Here's other things to consider. The vote is subjective. They hold grudges. If a player is rude, or refuses interviews, some writer's will keep this in mind. A quick glance.


I'm guessing you don't know much about the BBWAA if you just consider them people who "were taught to write stories and give interviews". I'd love for you to explain the exact criteria of the MVP and Cy Young as to enlighten the BBWAA and everyone else in the dark since they obviously had no access to these numbers.

I can't help but chuckle at your "It seems some people are afraid of progress and change? I would love to hear why writer's and fans are in the know?" line. It just further perpetuates the typical stathead hogwash. When Bill James started out he cut, pasted and compiled every box score from his Lawrence, KS newspaper, and every like-minded person would of been forced to do the same. Now you just have to go to Google and you can find resources like Retrosheet and other tools that make available to the average fan what was once was out of their reach, so for your typical "stathead" sabermetrics feels like more of a revolution than it is - because now they, the common fan, can research through baseball related questions for themselves with the help of the tools, processes and data that the sabermetricians have provided. In other words, Bill James understands statistics. However a lot of people who tout themselves as stats people are only parrotts of a book or a website and have little understanding of the data that they purport to be discussing, the methodology used to gather/create it, or how to analyze it at any level of significance.

Do we have any actuaries, or people with significant advanced statistics skills around here?


Yes I believe HOOTIE knows a lot more about stats than you and most, if not all people here, so to argue with him about stats isn't a very bright thing to do. But from you, it doesn't surprise me.
Image

"Jack, will you call me, if you're able?"

"I've got your phone number written, in the back of my Bible."
LBJackal
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 9196
Joined: 1 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The Hotel Yorba

Postby FatGuyWithAMullet » Fri Nov 12, 2004 5:09 pm

You don't know me LBJackal. I've taken 24 hours of undergrad statistics and 12 hours of grad level statistics. I work as a consultant with one area of expertise being SPC [statistical process control], so I know a little more than you might think.
FatGuyWithAMullet
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 850
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Uranus

Postby LBJackal » Fri Nov 12, 2004 5:32 pm

FatGuyWithAMullet wrote:You don't know me LBJackal. I've taken 24 hours of undergrad statistics and 12 hours of grad level statistics. I work as a consultant with one area of expertise being SPC [statistical process control], so I know a little more than you might think.


You might know something about statistics, as do a lot of poeple here, but saying that we don't know how to come to conclusions from them because we didn't compile the data is stupid. I'm sure plenty of people here know how the data was gathered, what it means, and how it's relevent to baseball.

Sure there are people who don't know anything about it and believe in sabrmetrics. And there are people who don't know anything about it and are totally against sabrmetrics. I don't think me, you, HOOTIE, or a lot of other people fall into either category though, so generalizing like that doesn't accomplish much.
Image

"Jack, will you call me, if you're able?"

"I've got your phone number written, in the back of my Bible."
LBJackal
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 9196
Joined: 1 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The Hotel Yorba

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Friday, Aug. 1
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Seattle at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Texas at Cleveland
(7:05 pm)
Philadelphia at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Colorado at Detroit
(7:08 pm)
LA Angels at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
San Francisco at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
Cincinnati at Miami
(7:10 pm)
indoors
NY Yankees at Boston
(7:10 pm)
Minnesota at Chi White Sox
(8:10 pm)
Toronto at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Milwaukee at St. Louis
(8:15 pm)
Kansas City at Oakland
(9:35 pm)
Pittsburgh at Arizona
(9:40 pm)
Chi Cubs at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)
Atlanta at San Diego
(10:10 pm)

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