Since Zack Greinke and Tim Lincecum won Cy Young awards this week with modest victory totals, there has been much discussion about how baseball writers are finally moving into the 21st century and looking beyond the win column.Although I'm all for patting baseball writers on the back -- since I am one, and I did vote for Greinke -- I think in the case of the NL Cy Young, my colleagues may have looked past victories, and still picked the wrong guy to make their point.
Let's start with the ol' FIP, or Fielding Independent Pitching. FIP is a stat intended to quantify how well a pitcher performed based solely on the things in his control (strikeouts, walks and homers) without regard to the vagaries of the defense behind him.
More Coverage: Lincecum Ekes Out NL Cy Young
FIP is a great stat when trying to project the future. If I were a scout or a GM, I'd be all over pitchers who had a good FIP.
However, when we're talking about the Cy Young, it's not about projecting the future. It's about evaluating what the pitcher actually did. And as far as evaluating what he did, an out is out is an out.
What really matters in pitching? Getting outs. Preventing runs.
Fortunately, we already have two excellent, garden-variety stats that tell us what we need to know about these things. As far as getting outs, opponents' on-base percentage is the ultimate measure. It's easier-to-calculate cousin is WHIP. As far as preventing runs, we've got ERA.
So let's look at our two NL Cy Young contenders: Tim Lincecum and Chris Carpenter. (Two? Yes. More on that later.)
Lincecum had a 2.48 ERA and a WHIP of 1.05, while Carpenter's numbers were 2.24 and 1.01. Looks to me like Carpenter did a better job than Lincecum at those two jobs: getting outs and preventing runs.
Now, the pro-Lincecum people are going to bring out his FIP. Lincecum's FIP of 2.34 was much better than Carpenter's 2.78. The reason for that is essentially that Lincecum had 10.42 strikeouts per nine innings, and Carpenter had just 6.73.
Lincecum is a power pitcher. He struck guys out. Carpenter is not. He let guys put the ball in play and his defense got the outs.
If I'm trying to project the future of both pitchers, or if I'm trying to decide which guy I'd like on my team for 2010 or beyond (ignoring their age, in this case), I'll take the guy with the strikeouts. Strikeouts are nice and clean and don't require any help from the defense.
But if I'm filling out a 2009 Cy Young ballot, I don't care about 2010 or projections. I care about what actually happened. What actually happened was that Carpenter got outs at a better rate than Lincecum. Just that more of them were boring grounders to the shortstop instead of big exciting punchouts. You can say that strikeouts are better than groundouts because you can't move a runner or score a run on a strikeout, but Carpenter still did a better job preventing runs, so it didn't matter.
Is it really fair to penalize a pitcher who did his job (got outs, prevented runs) because he didn't do it a certain way (with strikeouts)?
Not to me.
Let's look at another of the numbers that went against Carpenter: Innings pitched. Carpenter was hurt for a little over a month. He made four fewer starts and pitched 32 fewer innings than Lincecum.
If I'm judging the pitchers on their value to the team, that's a consideration. Those 32 innings Carpenter didn't pitch were pitched by guys much worse than him, and it hurt the Cardinals when he wasn't out there. That counts against his value, for sure. In an MVP race, Carpenter would definitely lose points for not being out there.But the Cy Young isn't about "value." It's about performance. It's about how well a guy pitched. A pitcher should be evaluated for what he did when he was on the mound, not for what happened to his team when he wasn't. Penalizing Carpenter for a game Mitchell Boggs pitched is no better than penalizing Greinke because (pick your own Royals player) is lousy.
The only reason to consider innings is if one pitcher was so far short in innings that you could question whether his rate stats would have been sustainable if he'd pitched a full season. If a pitcher made five starts in April with a 1.20 ERA and then blew out his arm and missed the rest of the year, you couldn't assume that he'd have maintained that level over five more months. In Carpenter's case, though, he made 28 starts. I feel pretty confident that anything he could do over 28 starts he could also do over 32.
If you want to put a premium on "stuff" (read: strikeouts) or "value" (read: innings pitched), that's OK. That's just not my interpretation of what the Cy Young is. I don't think picking Lincecum is an egregious mistake. I just wouldn't have picked him.
Hey, you ask, what about Adam Wainwright? He's not even in this conversation because he was well behind Lincecum and Carpenter in my Big Two stats, ERA and WHIP. When it came to the fundamentals of the pitcher's job, getting outs and preventing runs, he simply wasn't as good as the other two.
What he was good at was sitting in the dugout while his team scored runs, or sitting in the dugout while his bullpen recorded saves. The fact that Wainwright still got the most first-place votes for the Cy Young shows that too many of my colleagues are still over-valuing victories.
We are moving in the right direction, but we're not there yet.
Comments (Page 1 of 2)
The point of FIP is to take out defense. So if Carpenter, who pitches to contact as you point out, has Lincecum's crappy defense, his ERA and WHIP go up.
Jeff Fletcher ... the right pitcher won the award and your whining and attempt to manipulate the stats to make your point is weak. Trying to say that innings pitched has no real value in the Cy Young award because you happen to like Carpenter more is pretty funny and rather weak. You talk in circles trying to rationalize Carpenter and rather weakly describe what should be the criteria ... argue for using FIP for Zach but not for Tim? How does that work? The FIP statistic is a telling one ... not just as a judge for the future but more so how a pitcher did with the things he is out there to do himself ... pitch the ball, keep people off the bases and get outs as often as possible without anyone but the catcher "playing catch". Strikeouts are impressive ... and to dis that statistic because you don't happen to like Tim is STUPID. If you simply gave each pitcher a point for Wins, ERA, K,s, oppositions OBP and batting average against, games started, inning pitched, value to teams overall performance and any of those other complicated statistics that we keep on pitchers ... Tim Lincecum would have won the award based on pure performance and his stats for the year. BBA is a huge statistic ... and Tim blew away the opposition in that category and was close to the top in EVERY category besides wins and if you noticed there was only three NL pitchers who had over 15 wins this year. This article is simply whining and a bad attempt at pushing for the guy you thought should have based on using some stats for some players and weighting it in hindsight so your desired player could somehow win. Lame article and lame attempt at manipulating the stats to make your case. Another hack job by Jeff Fletcher! Tim lowered his ERA and his BAA and had another great year with a team that had no offense. He won the award and had a great year ... You are an idiot Jeff!
2 things...
1. I never said I voted for Greinke because of his FIP. I didn't even look at this FIP. I voted for him based on the same criteria I used with Carpenter: ERA and opponents OBP.
2. I don't dislike Lincecum.In fact, last year I had an NL Cy vote and I voted for Lincecum based on his strikeouts because the other numbers I considered, between him and Santana, were essentially a tie. Strikeouts are a good tie-breaker. In this case, Carpenter was ahead in both categories, so I didn't need the tie-breaker.
What were Tim's stats in the second half? How about road stats second half? How about his record in September when the Giants really could have used him and when it counted most! By the way he got the loss in the All-Star game too? Maybe too much weed!
I never said I voted for Greinke based on his FIP. I voted for Greinke for the exact same reason that I would have voted for Carpenter. His ERA was the best. His opponents OBP was the best.
He prevented runs, and got outs.
Jeff, you're still missing the point. Carpenter was only better at "getting outs and preventing runs" because his defense helped him more. Lincecum was actually better at pitching. That's why FIP is called "fielding independent pitching." It takes into account your ability TO PITCH, regardless of the help you get from defense. Both had great seasons, but Lincecum PITCHED better.
You are comical how you say FIP is a stat that is about the future rather than a statistic that tells how a pitcher does with what he is in control of ... sounds like a good indication of how a pitcher performed to me Jeff. You also talk up the stat OBP but completely discount opposing batting average against the pitcher which seems to me as good an indicator as OBP and Lincecum had a .206 batting average against compared to Carpenter's .226!!! Pitching in four more games than Carpenter of course his ERA was a little higher ... and Tim played for a team who was anemic offensively but still came up with another good year. Funny how you pick and choose only the statistics that could possibly make Carpenter a more logical selection but you left out too many pertinent statistics and belittled the grounds that got Tim the award ... Funny how that happens huh Jeff? Not one mention in the article about OBA and what you write about K's and innings pitched it sounds like you want to punish Tim because he can strike people out and didn't get hurt in the season an miss several starts. So let me get this straight ... Carpenter gets points for pitching less innings and way less K's and because the opposing players hit twenty points higher against him when compared to Tim's year. Like I said ... weak try at manipulating statistics. If you look at all the pertinent statistics it was a close race and Tim did win. To throw out all the ways that Tim out-performed and not give him credit for FIP, OBA, K's and pitching more innings along with what he did in ERA, wins, complete games, shutouts and the rest is just lame Jeff. Sounds like you are simply sour grapes Jeff ... by leaving out the things that got Tim the Cy Young you come off biased and rather lame.
I agree with reikilight regarding Tim pitched for a team with no offense to speak of. His wins are far more impressive for that reason. Switch the pitchers and give Tim the St. Louis offense and what happens? That should be very obvious.
This is a pointless exercise.
If you can argue that including innings and Ks is bad for calculating value, you have to argue a guy like Jon Heyman shouldn't be allowed to vote based on seeing a guy live 3 times plus SportsCenter highlights. And read your history - power pitchers ARE generally acknowledged as the best of breed.
Fact is, the BBWAA is used to being able to lobby each other into voting for one player. They like Carpenter. He's an upstanding guy and talks to them. Lincecum is a headcase pot smoker. All else equal, in the land of sportswriters that's plenty reason to foment a groundswell of Carpenter support.
And frankly, the "consensus" best pitcher not even appearing on the ballots of the guys who don't use "pluckiness" as a criteria was a MASSIVE EMBARRASSMENT to the old-boy sportswriters, who believe they can tell who's best without looking at stat one.
The fact that members at first assumed the omission of Carpenter must have been some kind of agreed-upon "sabermetric conspiracy" speaks volumes on the BBWAA mindset, and its irrelevance.
Apparently the best pitcher didn't win the Cy Young...The MLB voters won it..It wasn't about stats or how well they pitched..it was about popularity..The east coast and west coast teams get more publicity that the midwest teams do so more exposure...just watch ESPN and my point will be more than proven..Lincecum should not have won but popularity won out this time.
I see the point he's trying to make, and it's a valid one. Still, there's the defense thing and also if you're a manager with both pitchers on your team starting a playoff series who starts Game 1? I'd say Lincecum
I agree you bring up valid points. I also believe that you're entitled to your opinion. ERA and WHIP are a quick and dirty way to evaluate a pitcher. They are also things most people understand.
However, when a guy wins FIP, WAR, and VORP by a huge amount, it isn't even close to me. Lincecum was the only pitcher who allowed less than seven hits per nine innings. No one else was within a full hit of that. He was also the only one with more than ten Ks per nine. That's an amazing combination.
At the end of the day, I ultimately would want Lincecum on the mound for me instead of Carpenter in a must win game and it really isn't close.
You nailed it!
I couldn't agree with you more!
Tim would be my choice on Game 1 or Game 7 over Carpenter ... not even close. :)
The point can be made that noone loses in this vote, either. Both pitchers were extremely impressive, Carpenter is an upper tier game manager, and Tim is a fireballer in the mold of Gooden, Clemens, Ryan, Johnson, etc.
Apples and Oranges, really.
The one glaring point made earlier about who had better support overall is what helps Tims validation in my opinion though. Remember, Steve Carlton once won a Cy Young having produced nearly 40% of his teams seasonal victories. Its really about the guy who controls the game on his own terms, and the bucks stops at Tims mound, because batters are scared as hell to confront him, i have a feeling they dont hold the same view for Carpenter.
Again, a cant lose pick for the CY, either guy was clearly deserving of it.
Jeff, let's be realistic. Carpenter started 28 games and pitched 192.2 innings. Lincecum started 32 games and pitched 225.1 innings, a total of 32.9 more innings. That's the equivalent of almost five 7-inning games more than Carpenter. Lincecum's 33 extra innings means he MINIMALLY pitched to 99 more batters than Carpenter (but more like 165 more hitters, assuming 5 hitters per inning). Had Carpenter earned his 2.24 ERA pitching 225.1 innings instead of 191.2, then there would be a much stronger case for him. But he didn't.
Lincecum had 2 shutouts to Carpenter's 1 and 4 complete games to Carpenter's 3.
Let's calculate what Carpenter's final stats would have been (assuming everything remains constant) had he pitched 225.1 innings like Lincecum. The results would be as follows (Full name = winner of category):
C: 2.64 ERA (LINCECUM 2.48);
C: 3 Complete Games (LINCECUM 4);
C: 183 Hits (LINCECUM: 168);
CARPENTER: 57 runs (L: 68);
CARPENTER: 56 Earned Runs (L :62);
CARPENTER: 8 Home Runs (L: 10);
CARPENTER: 44 walks (L: 68);
C: 169 Strikeouts (LINCECUM: 261).
Carpenter clearly took it away from Lincecum in Runs and Walks allowed. The differential in the other categories that Carpenter won is minimal, which is probably what the voters thought. Like in boxing, the contender has to very clearly take it away from the champ, which didn't happen here when measured apples to apples.
As for games won, Lincecum had a lead in 6 games that the bullpen then lost for him (I remember the closer giving up a 3 point lead when Lincecum gave him the ball after pitching 8 innings) Had the bullpen come through and kept the lead, Lincecum's win - loss total would have been 21-1 instead of 15-7, which speaks for itself. Then of course, unlike the powerhouse Cardinals, the Giants have no offense to speak of, and the team's pitchers had little run support.
Ultimately, when we look at the FIP and especially Lincecum having almost 100 more strikeouts than Carpenter, it's clear why Lincecum won. I give huge kudos to both Cards pitchers because they had a really great year, but Lincecum had a slightly better one. I know how hard it is for fans to accept losses like this. It's how Giants fans felt when the Phillies' Manager (Manuel) picked Victorino over Sandoval for the All Star Game and we thought the stats favored Sandoval.
A couple more things.
Regarding the run support: Lincecum's run support was 4.6 runs per start. Carpenter: 4.6 runs per start. You can throw that out the window.
Besides, I don't care about run support because I don't care about wins and losses.
I'm judging the pitchers on how effectively they pitched.
By the way, the reason I used opponents OBP instead of opponents BA is because what matters is whether the guy gets on base, not how he gets on base. Lincecum gave up fewer hits, but he also obviously walked more, because he allowed more baserunners (per inning) than Carpenter.
Finally, I don't understand the commenter who said that Carpenter's ERA would have gone up if he'd pitched 32 more innings? How do you know it wouldn't have gone down? The fact is, MLB rules say if you've pitched 162 innings, that's enough to qualify for the ERA title. That's the standard, meaning that pitchers who have met that threshold have pitched enough innings that their ERAs are comparable.
The closeness in their run support is an interesting stat. I wouldn't have guessed that and I assume most wouldn't have either. To be picky though, it was 4.57 to 4.59. I agree the difference is negligible, but rounding them both makes it look like you're trying to manipulate the stats.
OBP is a very fair way of judging things. Like I said, you do bring valid points.
The problem I have with you and a few other writers overall is that you guys are ripping into a guy who had an argument. Honestly, a solid argument could have been made for two or three guys to win and another two or three for second. Just because a guy uses a different way evaluating guys doesn't mean he should be ripped for it.
Furthermore, that isn't even the most egregious voting mistake made this postseason. Granted, I don't believe it was a mistake. Like I said, it was valid. How come no one is ripping into the guy who voted Verlander over both Greinke and Hernandez in the AL? That is horrible and I haven't read a single writer nor article complaining about him.
Plus, I doubt Pujols and Mauer are unanimous even though they should be. I bet no one bats an eyelash when Tex or Jeter steals a vote or two away from Mauer. The same thing for whomever steals a vote away from Pujols. It seems a few writers are going out of their way to bash KLaw just because he's a "rebel" with a new way of thinking.
Yes, I know that you didn't specifically call him out nor did you really even imply any ill will towards him, but you along with a few other writers do make it seem like your way of thinking is the only way. Like I said, you have a valid argument. This year though, another valid argument won out. I don't see why people are so worked up over it. I suppose you guys need something to write about though.
Jeff, do they pay you to reply to comments? Just wondering.
Sphinxter, I don't mean to rip anyone. I agree that this was a close call and I don't fault people for voting for Lincecum.
I was actually defending myself against people ripping me, people who said it was a slam dunk that Lincecum should have won.
I'm merely pointing out that there are a lot of stats that tell you a lot of different things, and not all of them apply to every argument.
Some tell you who is the "best pitcher."
Some tell you who is the "most valuable pitcher."
Some tell you who "pitched the best."
I'm merely stating my opinion that, for the Cy Young, I only care about the third group, not the first two.
Jeff, It’s true that Carpenter’s ERA could have decreased as you suggest, but not likely. Based on his pattern of 7 Home Runs over 191.2 innings (wow!), he would have earned 1 more run had he pitched 225.1 innings, which would have increased his ERA – again, as I said previously, assuming all factors remain constant (this is the key).
Even though 162 innings might be sufficient innings to be considered for the Cy Young, most people would account for the fact that one candidate pitched only 2/3's of what another pitched. Plain old logic says that the 162 threshold is simply for the sake of allowing a pitcher to be considered, not that it suddenly converts all pitchers' statistics to an equal footing.
If you write 500 stories per year and someone else writes 300 stories per year, should you both be evaluated equally?
Your run support stat of 4.6 to 4.6 doesn’t compare with other credible sources’ run support stats. This is however one stat that does vary depending on whom you check, but in every rendition (except yours), Carpenter received slightly better run support. Run support helps the pitcher’s psyche during the game, so I don't agree that it should be discounted, as you propose.
Lincecum had 11 no decisions (don’t know what Carpenter’s stat is) and the bullpen gave up 6 leads (Carpenter had 3 leads given up by the bullpen). One could say that if the bullpen hadn’t lost Lincecum’s lead and he had instead won the 6 games, he could potentially have ended with a 21-1 win/loss (instead of 15-7, although I know that other factors could impact this conclusion -- and yes, same could be said for Carpenter's 3 losses, but ultimately, the improved win-loss result would quiet people who point to that stat as the reason why Lincecum shouldn't have won). Even with Carpenter’s much, much better walks per inning stat (as you point out), the overall result is that opponents still hit Carpenter .226 to Lincecum’s .206 (this, even though he pitched many more innings).
Maybe all three pitchers should have split the Cy Young, but the voters didn’t appear to want to do that. I really believe Carpenter’s fewer innings pitched is what did him in. For some voters, Lincecum’s outstanding strikeouts stat meant a lot. I don't agree with that analysis because many pitchers aren’t strikeout pitchers and are still very effective, as Carpenter proved.
Cards fans have a lot to be proud of. They have the best ballplayer in baseball (Pujols), one of the best managers (in my opinion, the best), they’re consistently division leaders, and this year they had two Cy Young award candidates. Be happy for us to at least have Lincecum!