Which is Pitcher of the Year?

endgame · 02-06-2011, 02:35 AM

The Covenant Accord's Guiding Hand Award:

I don't know if I've ever solicited assistance in evaluating awards, but this one has me looking very closely and I'm just on the verge of being willing to acknowledge Pitcher 1 (left) over Pitcher 2 (right). That's the way the AI sees it with Ask Computer, but I find it a bit too tight to call with great confidence. Hoffman's on the left, Nunne's on the right. Thoughts?

RchW · 02-06-2011, 03:19 AM

A slight edge to Hoffman. If the award went to Nunne, I wouldn't protest too much though.

Curtis · 02-06-2011, 03:47 AM

Essentially the same. Hoffman seems a little more 'clutch' to me, though I may be fooling myself. I'm partial to the guys with better control who keep the ball in the yard over the strikeout artists (though neither appears to be a huge K-man). The clincher for me was Hoffman having a higher BABIP, but still posting a noticeably lower ERA.

tejdog1 · 02-06-2011, 04:15 AM

Hoffman.

snepp · 02-06-2011, 05:56 AM

Hoffman, by the slimest of margins.

MizzouRah · 02-06-2011, 11:32 AM

I don't think either vote is wrong.. mine would go to Hoffman, but I could easily see Nunne winning as well.

Chicagofan76 · 02-06-2011, 11:45 AM

Pitcher #2 for me the k's r higher and the oppavg is lower.

Gigszoo · 02-06-2011, 04:58 PM

Nunne gets it...1 fewer games pitched but 7 more innings.......every manager wants their starter to go 7-8inn,hoffman gets 6.5 nunne 7.

Questdog · 02-06-2011, 06:35 PM

Pitcher #1 is CLEARLY the choice. Won 20 and has a better ERA, how can anyone vote for the other fella?

Sabermetric analysis is very useful for determining who the better player is likely to be next year. But the game is about wins and runs and wins and runs are the best way to tell what you did THIS year. And what you did THIS year should determine who is the MVP and Cy Young, not who is the objective better player in the long run is likely to be. The choice of Felix Hernandez this year, while hailed as a victory for sabermetrics, was, in fact, stupid. Hernandez is a great pitcher and he should get paid a pile of pesos, but his great pitching did not do much to win the Mariners games this year. The irony is that Hernandez should have won the award last year.

I can write on this all day.....

The sabermetricians will tell you that his stats add up to prove he SHOULD have won more games and for a hitter that his numbers SHOULD have produced X amount of runs. But it doesn't matter what it SHOULD have done, it's what it DID DO that should count for awards for this year.

Handing out awards in this fashion is, to me, akin to handing out hits according to how hard you hit the ball. "Well, you hit that one square! Not your fault it was right at the center fielder, we'll give you a hit on that one!" and "The danged pitcher broke your bat and you only nubbed it over the second baseman's head because someone tied his shoelaces together! No hit for you!"

Then you have the case of the guy who knocked in 120 runs, but only hit .260 and didn't walk much (the greatest sin of all for sabermetrics) and they'll tell you he was lucky and the likelihood of him repeating those numbers is very small.....duh! Of course, but shouldn't he get credit for having done it at least once? Should we take away the Perfect Game from a pitcher because it was lucky and the likelihood of repeating the feat is very miniscule?

I never thought I'd see the day, but here it is:

A player's fantasy numbers are now more important than who wins and who loses.

snepp · 02-06-2011, 06:48 PM

You just set a new record for strawmen obliterated in a single post.

The Perfect Game · 02-06-2011, 07:30 PM

Hoffman, although it's really close.

Hotwheelz · 02-07-2011, 12:37 AM

First off on the Felix Hernandez front. Yes, baseball is about wins but if you base your evaluation of a pitcher on their win count you are not giving that pitcher the credit they likely deserve. Wins are a team dependent stat. The Mariners provided Felix with very little run support and for him to win enough games for the majority to be impressed he would have to run a sub 1 ERA. Is that his fault? No. Until a pitcher has something to do with his run support we cannot allow wins to be a huge part of the evaluation process.

Take this for example. Pedro Martinez in his prime. One of the greatest of all time. One year he is playing for the present day New York Yankees who score a ton of runs. He wins 21 games. Lets say he was dealt to the Mariners instead, pitches just as well, but only wins 14 due to the lack of run support. What changed? Team performance. In each case the pitcher pitched just as well. So for a pitching award how should you evaluate that player? Should you discount his performance because of the team he pitched for? I think not.

Anyway, I know this argument will go on and on until the end of time. Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in there.

As for the topic of the thread. I say let the computer decide and go with that. The decision is just too close for you to make. Roll the dice.

Questdog · 02-07-2011, 02:19 AM

Here is my point in a different manner:

Suppose I hit .400 for the year with 65 doubles, but no home runs, plus I walk a lot (to make the sabermetricians happy) and my OBP is .550. But none of my teammates EVER get on base in front of me and none of them EVER knock me home, so I go the whole year without scoring a single run or getting a single RBI. Is it my fault? NO. But what did all my efforts amount to? Absolutely nothing. My hard work and effort was all in vain. I might as well have struck out everytime. That's the nature of baseball. It is not fair. A hard hit ball can go for an out (or two) and a squibber can score a run. But when you get down to the bottom line, it is not the effort or the talent or anything other than did I help my team win games. Well, I did my part, but in reality my part added up to nothing...wasted effort. So should I be the MVP of the league because if I was in different circumstances my efforts would bear much fruit? No, because then that wouldn't be this league would it? That would be a fantasy world where every hit gives .23 runs, regular as clock work.....

Should I get paid the same as the losers who couldn't knock me home or get on base so I could knock them in? No, I should get paid based on what I've proven I could do in that fantasy world where effort and talent are more equitably compensated.

But my real and true worth for this year to my team was absolutely zero (except maybe the extra fans who came to the park to see the oddity of a .400 hitter who can't score a run....)

Fullgatsu · 02-12-2011, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Questdog

Here is my point in a different manner:

Suppose I hit .400 for the year with 65 doubles, but no home runs, plus I walk a lot (to make the sabermetricians happy) and my OBP is .550. But none of my teammates EVER get on base in front of me and none of them EVER knock me home, so I go the whole year without scoring a single run or getting a single RBI. Is it my fault? NO. But what did all my efforts amount to? Absolutely nothing. My hard work and effort was all in vain. I might as well have struck out everytime. That's the nature of baseball. It is not fair. A hard hit ball can go for an out (or two) and a squibber can score a run. But when you get down to the bottom line, it is not the effort or the talent or anything other than did I help my team win games. Well, I did my part, but in reality my part added up to nothing...wasted effort. So should I be the MVP of the league because if I was in different circumstances my efforts would bear much fruit? No, because then that wouldn't be this league would it? That would be a fantasy world where every hit gives .23 runs, regular as clock work.....

Should I get paid the same as the losers who couldn't knock me home or get on base so I could knock them in? No, I should get paid based on what I've proven I could do in that fantasy world where effort and talent are more equitably compensated.

But my real and true worth for this year to my team was absolutely zero (except maybe the extra fans who came to the park to see the oddity of a .400 hitter who can't score a run....)

That's a fine argument if runs is all that matters in baseball. Let's use your player as an example he have no RBI or Runs scored but he his OBP is .550 and let say he have 600 plate appearances that season and plays 162 games which means he will be on base 330 times a season and if he's stranded at a base everytime he's on he would force his opponents to go through ~2 extra plate appearances per game which his teammates could use to make a run. If the player would have struck out everytime as you said he would have given your team 330 less plate appearances then if he would have reached bases at a .550 clip and being stranded all the time. That player actually was worth something, now what you determine that player value was is another discussion.

Another thing if you say this players effort is wasted because it didn't convert directly to a run, shouldn't you make the same for every run that didn't convert directly to a win. Let say we have a player that have .320 AVG .400 OBP .800 SLG with 60 HR and 145 RBI impressive no doubt about that but if every run by him was scored in games when it was a blowout did it mean anything? If he hit 4 homeruns and 10 RBI in a game but his opponents outscored his team 22-13 did his runs matter? If you place a high value on how much players contributes to wins you might like the WPA(win probability added) stat where both of these players would score quite low despite their otherwise impressive stats.

1998 Yankees · 02-12-2011, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Questdog

Pitcher #1 is CLEARLY the choice. Won 20 and has a better ERA, how can anyone vote for the other fella?

I don't know about the rest of the post but, being a traditionalist, I go with this thinking. That 20-game, lower ERA threshold is still strong with me and will be the determinants if other stats are similar. Results count, not strikeout ratios and BABIP.

daveawrit · 02-12-2011, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fullgatsu

That's a fine argument if runs is all that matters in baseball.

I understand the rest of your argument, but in the end isn't this technically true? Yes, he was creating 1-2 more plate appearances (and just as a reminder this is 1-2 more player plate appearances, not times through the lineup), but in the end he himself wouldn't have been contributing anything to whether the team scored runs.

With that said, I almost just talked myself out of picking Nunne. My original argument was that he pitched an extra 1/2 inning-ish per appearance, therefore essentially saving a bullpen arm every time he went out there (on average). In the end I would still probably go with Nunne, the extra innings pitched, better K/9 and K/BB, and an EVER so slight advantage in winning percentage (which tells me that he may have won more games if his bullpen hadn't blown saves), and I think that he had a slightly better season overall. Yes, I know the ERA tells otherwise.

One other question I would have, since the players are so close individually, were either of their teams in contention until the end of the season? To me, how they pitched in "important" games tells a lot about how they are as a pitcher as well.

Fullgatsu · 02-12-2011, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveawrit

I understand the rest of your argument, but in the end isn't this technically true? Yes, he was creating 1-2 more plate appearances (and just as a reminder this is 1-2 more player plate appearances, not times through the lineup), but in the end he himself wouldn't have been contributing anything to whether the team scored runs.

Runs matter a lot in baseball but it isn't the all important stat. A teams success is often determined by how many wins they get so I would say that wins is a more important stat if you really want to break down what matters, which is just like every other sport. Runs matter less then others sports scoring systems, Soccer for an example use goal difference as tie breaker between teams and I believe Ice Hockey does as well. My argument was that he actually did something for his team and that what he did was worth more then just striking out all the time, his performance even though it wasn't directly involved in runs actually did matter.

Questdog · 02-13-2011, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fullgatsu

Runs matter a lot in baseball but it isn't the all important stat. A teams success is often determined by how many wins they get so I would say that wins is a more important stat if you really want to break down what matters, which is just like every other sport. Runs matter less then others sports scoring systems, Soccer for an example use goal difference as tie breaker between teams and I believe Ice Hockey does as well. My argument was that he actually did something for his team and that what he did was worth more then just striking out all the time, his performance even though it wasn't directly involved in runs actually did matter.

You're argument has a fallacy:

What is the benefit of gaining extra plate appearances for the teammates who cannot take advantage of them?

My point is not that the player is worthless (in fact he did more than his share of helping the team try to score runs), but that his effort only has true value in the context that it happens. And when you're talking about who had the best season in the past tense, then removing the player's accomplishments from their context is ludicrously idiotic.

Let me try one more analogy: Sabermetric stats are akin to potential energy in that they can tell you what the player's sum accomplishments should be worth in a closed system. But until that potential energy is transformed into kinetic energy it has no tangible meaning. RBIs, runs scored, wins, losses, etc. are all measures of the kinetic energy that was actually produced by the interaction of the player's efforts with not only his teammates in the batting order, but also the opposing team. And kinetic energy always has real value, regardless of how it was produced or whether it is repeatable.

Now, if we're talking about who we should sign for next year, then we have a different conversation.

Questdog · 02-13-2011, 01:04 AM

Your other argument that runs shouldn't count unless they happen in wins is not a good one to me. If that were true, then the wins shouldn't count either unless they get you to a championship, and the championships shouldn't matter unless they get you in the hall of fame, and getting in the hall of fame shouldn't matter unless it gets you some skirt.....

But if you wanted to give the MVP out to the guy who scored and drove in the most runs in only wins, I think there would be worse ways to choose....

View Poll Results: Pitcher of the Year?
Hoffman	28	77.78%
Nunne	5	13.89%
Too close. Doesn't matter.	3	8.33%
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll

02-06-2011, 04:15 AM	#4
tejdog1 All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Danbury, CT Posts: 1,647	Hoffman. __________________ It's amazing How you make your face just like a wall How you take your heart and turn it off How I turn my head and lose it all And it's unnerving How just one move puts me by myself There you go just trusting someone else Now I know I put us both through hell ~Matchbox 20, "Leave" Everyone knows it's spelled "TRAID", not trade

02-06-2011, 04:58 PM	#8
Gigszoo Bat Boy Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 3	Nunne Nunne gets it...1 fewer games pitched but 7 more innings.......every manager wants their starter to go 7-8inn,hoffman gets 6.5 nunne 7.

02-06-2011, 07:30 PM	#11
The Perfect Game Minors (Single A) Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 55	Hoffman, although it's really close. __________________ Read my Dynasty: http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...1-dynasty.html

02-06-2011, 02:35 AM	#1
endgame Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 16,842	Which is Pitcher of the Year? The Covenant Accord's Guiding Hand Award: I don't know if I've ever solicited assistance in evaluating awards, but this one has me looking very closely and I'm just on the verge of being willing to acknowledge Pitcher 1 (left) over Pitcher 2 (right). That's the way the AI sees it with Ask Computer, but I find it a bit too tight to call with great confidence. Hoffman's on the left, Nunne's on the right. Thoughts? Attached Images __________________ "Try again. Fail again. Fail better." -- Samuel Beckett _____________________________________________ Last edited by endgame; 02-06-2011 at 02:38 AM.

02-06-2011, 03:19 AM	#2
RchW Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Toronto ON by way of Glasgow UK Posts: 15,629	A slight edge to Hoffman. If the award went to Nunne, I wouldn't protest too much though. __________________ Cheers RichW If you’re looking for a good cause to donate money to please consider a Donation to Parkinson’s Canada. It may help me have a better future and if not me, someone else. Thanks. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit

02-06-2011, 03:47 AM	#3
Curtis Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Watertown, New York Posts: 4,567	Essentially the same. Hoffman seems a little more 'clutch' to me, though I may be fooling myself. I'm partial to the guys with better control who keep the ball in the yard over the strikeout artists (though neither appears to be a huge K-man). The clincher for me was Hoffman having a higher BABIP, but still posting a noticeably lower ERA.

02-06-2011, 05:56 AM	#5
snepp All Star Starter Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,482	Hoffman, by the slimest of margins.

02-06-2011, 11:32 AM	#6
MizzouRah Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Troy, Mo Posts: 6,252	I don't think either vote is wrong.. mine would go to Hoffman, but I could easily see Nunne winning as well.

02-06-2011, 11:45 AM	#7
Chicagofan76 Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Diamond, IL Posts: 6,339 Infractions: 2/2 (3)	Pitcher #2 for me the k's r higher and the oppavg is lower.

02-06-2011, 06:35 PM	#9
Questdog Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: In a dark, damp cave where I'm training slugs to run the bases...... Posts: 16,142	Pitcher #1 is CLEARLY the choice. Won 20 and has a better ERA, how can anyone vote for the other fella? Sabermetric analysis is very useful for determining who the better player is likely to be next year. But the game is about wins and runs and wins and runs are the best way to tell what you did THIS year. And what you did THIS year should determine who is the MVP and Cy Young, not who is the objective better player in the long run is likely to be. The choice of Felix Hernandez this year, while hailed as a victory for sabermetrics, was, in fact, stupid. Hernandez is a great pitcher and he should get paid a pile of pesos, but his great pitching did not do much to win the Mariners games this year. The irony is that Hernandez should have won the award last year. I can write on this all day..... The sabermetricians will tell you that his stats add up to prove he SHOULD have won more games and for a hitter that his numbers SHOULD have produced X amount of runs. But it doesn't matter what it SHOULD have done, it's what it DID DO that should count for awards for this year. Handing out awards in this fashion is, to me, akin to handing out hits according to how hard you hit the ball. "Well, you hit that one square! Not your fault it was right at the center fielder, we'll give you a hit on that one!" and "The danged pitcher broke your bat and you only nubbed it over the second baseman's head because someone tied his shoelaces together! No hit for you!" Then you have the case of the guy who knocked in 120 runs, but only hit .260 and didn't walk much (the greatest sin of all for sabermetrics) and they'll tell you he was lucky and the likelihood of him repeating those numbers is very small.....duh! Of course, but shouldn't he get credit for having done it at least once? Should we take away the Perfect Game from a pitcher because it was lucky and the likelihood of repeating the feat is very miniscule? I never thought I'd see the day, but here it is: A player's fantasy numbers are now more important than who wins and who loses.

02-06-2011, 06:48 PM	#10
snepp All Star Starter Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,482	You just set a new record for strawmen obliterated in a single post.

02-07-2011, 12:37 AM	#12
Hotwheelz All Star Starter Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 1,620	First off on the Felix Hernandez front. Yes, baseball is about wins but if you base your evaluation of a pitcher on their win count you are not giving that pitcher the credit they likely deserve. Wins are a team dependent stat. The Mariners provided Felix with very little run support and for him to win enough games for the majority to be impressed he would have to run a sub 1 ERA. Is that his fault? No. Until a pitcher has something to do with his run support we cannot allow wins to be a huge part of the evaluation process. Take this for example. Pedro Martinez in his prime. One of the greatest of all time. One year he is playing for the present day New York Yankees who score a ton of runs. He wins 21 games. Lets say he was dealt to the Mariners instead, pitches just as well, but only wins 14 due to the lack of run support. What changed? Team performance. In each case the pitcher pitched just as well. So for a pitching award how should you evaluate that player? Should you discount his performance because of the team he pitched for? I think not. Anyway, I know this argument will go on and on until the end of time. Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in there. As for the topic of the thread. I say let the computer decide and go with that. The decision is just too close for you to make. Roll the dice.

02-07-2011, 02:19 AM	#13
Questdog Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: In a dark, damp cave where I'm training slugs to run the bases...... Posts: 16,142	Here is my point in a different manner: Suppose I hit .400 for the year with 65 doubles, but no home runs, plus I walk a lot (to make the sabermetricians happy) and my OBP is .550. But none of my teammates EVER get on base in front of me and none of them EVER knock me home, so I go the whole year without scoring a single run or getting a single RBI. Is it my fault? NO. But what did all my efforts amount to? Absolutely nothing. My hard work and effort was all in vain. I might as well have struck out everytime. That's the nature of baseball. It is not fair. A hard hit ball can go for an out (or two) and a squibber can score a run. But when you get down to the bottom line, it is not the effort or the talent or anything other than did I help my team win games. Well, I did my part, but in reality my part added up to nothing...wasted effort. So should I be the MVP of the league because if I was in different circumstances my efforts would bear much fruit? No, because then that wouldn't be this league would it? That would be a fantasy world where every hit gives .23 runs, regular as clock work..... Should I get paid the same as the losers who couldn't knock me home or get on base so I could knock them in? No, I should get paid based on what I've proven I could do in that fantasy world where effort and talent are more equitably compensated. But my real and true worth for this year to my team was absolutely zero (except maybe the extra fans who came to the park to see the oddity of a .400 hitter who can't score a run....)

02-13-2011, 01:04 AM	#19
Questdog Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: In a dark, damp cave where I'm training slugs to run the bases...... Posts: 16,142	Your other argument that runs shouldn't count unless they happen in wins is not a good one to me. If that were true, then the wins shouldn't count either unless they get you to a championship, and the championships shouldn't matter unless they get you in the hall of fame, and getting in the hall of fame shouldn't matter unless it gets you some skirt..... But if you wanted to give the MVP out to the guy who scored and drove in the most runs in only wins, I think there would be worse ways to choose....