Haven, calm down. I'm just saying Bonds was a clear choice, and Garcia wasn't. I'm sure its nice to be you, in your insulated universe where you think you are a totally rational being, but Garcia was not as clear a choice as Bonds. I think if you'll step back and take a deep breath even you'll admit that. And yes 20 wins is not a magic number, BUT wins and losses ARE important. And 20 wins out of an average of 30 to 35 starts is significant as its the difference between winning more than 2/3rds of your games or not. They are the reason a pitcher pitches. To say wins are meaningless (your words) is not rational or objective, it just happens to fit your push for Garcia. Sure Maddux has only won 20 games twice, BUT how many times has he been on a team that won as many games as Seattle did? ? I bet if he had been on such a team in one of the SEVEN times he won 18 or 19 games, he would have broken the 20 win mark, not that its significant of course. And I find it strange in your perfectly rational universe how you explain Clemens winning more games than Garcia, on a team that won less games than Seattle, on a team that scored less runs than Seattle, as pure LUCK? Mr. Baseball is a science. Mr. Baseball is played by the numbers more than any other sport. All your Vulcan style logic has left you with the declaration that Clemens is luckier than Garcia? You are quite the scientist. I don't believe there is anything wrong with my logical abilities, as I at least speculate on why Clemens got where he is. At least as compared to your Rick James Luck Measuring Ratio. But my daddy always told me its better to be lucky than good. I guess this proves the point...
Steve Carlton in 1972 for a very bad Phillies team went 27-10 with 30 complete games, 346 innings pitched, 257 hits allowed, 87 walks, 310 strikeouts, 8 shutouts, and a 1.98 ERA! BTW - the Phillies won 59 games that year, so Carlton almost accounted for half their wins. That is the greatest single season for a pitcher in the modern era, IMO. I doubt that Clemens with his 3 ERA could win even 10 games if he had the same team that Carlton had that season.
OoooooooooooooooooooooKay! And what does that prove? Bob, show Manny what he's won behind Door Number 3......Nothing! Congratualtions!!! BTW Haven, I really DON'T have to show that Clemens run support has been higher than his teammates over the course of his career to show that he increases his offense by protecting his players. It is entirely possible that the composition of this particular Yankee team responded in that way. The fact that he has not always had such high run support does not in itself disprove the theory that this years Yankees hugged the plate more resulting in more runs in his starts. For instance it could be argued that this Yankee team is a veteran team that could take any extra advantage and turn it into runs. It could be argued that it took the Yanks a couple of years to warm up to Clemens and they were effected more by his emotion than previously when they still weren't sure if he was awesome or a nut. Because you dismiss emotion in evaluation of a pitcher's season does not mean you can dismiss emotion on the field as a factor in performance.
I would've given it to Mussina. He held opponents to a .274 OBP, lowest in the AL, and played in more of a hitter's park than Garcia did. Clemens and his winning % are incredibly overrated.
this is ludicrous, clemens had a good year but geez does the media really ignore all stats but win/loss record and sucking up to the yankees even more First off im a baseball fan in general although i support the astros and a's organizations more than most Mike Mussina outpitched clemens this yr and hes on the same team, only reason he didnt win 20: RUN SUPPORT Im sorry but i think freddy garcia, mussina and a few others(mulder, buerhle) all got jipped here. ERA, k/bb ratio, hits allowed, opp ba are much better determinants of dominance as a pitcher than wins and losses and guess what as haven proved up freddy garcia beats clemens in every one, except wins. So who deserves the cy young again? Certainly not, the Rocket. Dont get me wrong, clemens is a great pitcher and has had a stellar career, but induction to the hall of fame is a career award not the cy young, which represents the best season by a pitcher in both leagues. Overall, someone else, probably garcia or maybe mussina deserved the award and to give it to the Rocket definitely lowers the medias credibility in my eyes(im going to be a sportscaster and hope to change this) and confirms my belief they suck up to the Yankees way more than other teams.
Damn, man, are you clueless or what??? What does it prove?? It proves that winning 27 games for a team that didn't win overall 60 is pretty f***ing impressive. 30 complete games, are you kidding me?? Hayes Street, You go on and on about Clemens winning 20 games and his great run support, but you're missing my point here. Winning 20 or more games for a 100 win team with great run support is not that impressive. Winning 27 games for a team that hasn't won 60 games with a sub 2 ERA is impressive. Go back and read all of Carlton's stats. Yes, 27 wins are pretty damn impressive, but so is 30 complete games, the hits to innings ratio, the 8 shutouts, etc. So, don't just look at wins..look at the big picture - meaning all the stats like ERA, winning percentage, hits per innings ratio, strikeouts, strikeouts per 9 innings, etc. I'm sorry that bringing that example up wasn't clear to you. I thought it was abundantly clear to everyone that Clemens wouldn't even win 10 games with that team, the one that Carlton had to play with.
Is it just me, or are those INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT awards. Just wondering. Also, I do hate Duquette. I also have no liking for Clemens, a notorious headhunter who relies on intimidation as much as skill. What a dick. So haven, what exactly about Red Sox fans do you dislike. Rampant truth telling? The Yankees do suck. Very much. Everybody should take advantage of each and every oppurtunity to sound off on that fact. Also haven, what exactly do you dislike about the Red Sox in general? Manny- Dont worry about these dudes. We will see who's laughing next season when Nomar, Manny and Pedro are all healthy. Combined number of games in which Nomar and Manny played in? 16. Nomar, Manny, and Everett? 14. Nomar, Manny, Everett, and Pedro? 0. Yeah, its all Duquette's fault.
Did Bonds put more distance between himself and the rest of the league than did Garcia? Yes. Is it possible to construct a great argument for anyone else in either situation? No. Whether or not there is another player meriting the award, in either situation, is a binary choice. Therefore, "degree" is irrelevant. Actually, they're not. They're a peripheral #. By that, I mean they're not actually indicative of production, but are merely a stat that often accompanies production. Dude, if you really want to argue w/l's are statistically meaningful, you've got to take on most people who seriously think about baseball statisically. W/L record does't MEAN anything in terms of production. As stated above, it's peripheral. Like being smart and making a lot of money. There might be a correllation... but it's not absolute, and it's not causal. You've stooped to the level of pure idiocy. Sometime, just for the fun of it, go look at each pitcher's run support. You'll find some surprising situations. Do I find it unlikely that this particular combination of Yankees players somehow rallied behind Clemens to give him high run support? Yes. If you want to make that argument, it's an uphill battle. The truth is, Garcia didn't receive bad run support. But it wasn't fantastic either. A pitcher gets 33 starts. Some are going to luck out a bit more than others when it comes to run support. Over the course of a CAREER, this will probably even out... but not a season. Much like Brady Anderson's 50 hr season, Roger Clemens will probably never, ever receive this much run support again. Remember a guy named Scott Elarton? He won 18 games a couple of years ago, and a lot of people were predicting Cy Young's. Guess what? Elarton also had obscenely high run support that year. He came crashing back down to earth in part because he was NEVER as good as people thought he was. Sure, he got worse. But he was never as good as your standard 18 game winner. As for the "better lucky than good" remark... that's fine in the case of winning games, but not for dishing out awards. __________________ The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer. Henry A. Kissinger Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged Manny Ramirez Senior Member Registered: Aug 2001 Posts: 1347 11-16-2001 02:48 PM Steve Carlton in 1972 for a very bad Phillies team went 27-10 with 30 complete games, 346 innings pitched, 257 hits allowed, 87 walks, 310 strikeouts, 8 shutouts, and a 1.98 ERA! BTW - the Phillies won 59 games that year, so Carlton almost accounted for half their wins. That is the greatest single season for a pitcher in the modern era, IMO. I doubt that Clemens with his 3 ERA could win even 10 games if he had the same team that Carlton had that season. __________________ I do not believe in posting smilies anymore. This BBS has made me into a bitter, young man. Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged HayesStreet Member Registered: Jun 2001 Posts: 368 11-16-2001 03:01 PM quote: Originally posted by Manny Ramirez Steve Carlton in 1972 for a very bad Phillies team went 27-10 with 30 complete games, 346 innings pitched, 257 hits allowed, 87 walks, 310 strikeouts, 8 shutouts, and a 1.98 ERA! BTW - the Phillies won 59 games that year, so Carlton almost accounted for half their wins. That is the greatest single season for a pitcher in the modern era, IMO. I doubt that Clemens with his 3 ERA could win even 10 games if he had the same team that Carlton had that season. OoooooooooooooooooooooKay! And what does that prove? Bob, show Manny what he's won behind Door Number 3......Nothing! Congratualtions!!! BTW Haven, I really DON'T have to show that Clemens run support has been higher than his teammates over the course of his career to show that he increases his offense by protecting his players. It is entirely possible that the composition of this particular Yankee team responded in that way. The fact that he has not always had such high run support does not in itself disprove the theory that this years Yankees hugged the plate more resulting in more runs in his starts. For instance it could be argued that this Yankee team is a veteran team that could take any extra advantage and turn it into runs. It could be argued that it took the Yanks a couple of years to warm up to Clemens and they were effected more by his emotion than previously when they still weren't sure if he was awesome or a nut. Because you dismiss emotion in evaluation of a pitcher's season does not mean you can dismiss emotion on the field as a factor in performance.
Its too bad the al's best pitcher didn't win the cy young. Atleast Tim will be used more efficiently next season.
The only reason Clemens got the award was because he started the season 20-1, never mind the fact he completely melted down and self-destructed afterwards, he is winding down his career, he is in New York, he has a reputation for winning the award. Almost like the Gold Glove, once you win one all you have to have is a decent season and you're one of the top candidates for it again. Clemens didn't deserve the Cy Young this season. Garcia definitely is the Cy Young this year.
I'm not really on a particular side of this debate, but I still would like someone to answer my question...
Yep, they suck so bad that they are only the greatest sports franchise in the world. 26 Championships. God it must suck to be a Red Sox fan.
Right, but baseball is more than statistics, Haven. Sure, the percentages even out over time, but often its the move based on the 'gut' that decides games and seasons, not statistics. Bottom line is that most managers and owners and teammates and fans would rather have a pitcher who WINS more than a statistically superior pitcher (ala Ryan his ERA crown year with a losing record). Maybe the number crunchers would want to build a team of the most statistically superior players, but baseball is about talent, and heart, and chemistry. (Look at the NBA's Trailblazers or any of the baseball teams that have bought a lot of talent that didn't fit together). I'm not sure why this personal attack is necessary, or deserved. Its ironic, as i've already pointed out, that someone such as yourself defers to the explanantion of Clemens run production as "luck." How do you do that on one hand while claiming you have 'statistical' justification for all your other positions. Isn't it strange that on every point you say "look at the numbers, they show the truth" except for the core point that Clemens did better than Garcia, which you put down to the most unstatistical unscientific LUCK. Its not an UPHILL battle for me because I have an explanation that COULD EXPLAIN the run support, and you CAN'T or WON'T explain it. I don't think that its idiotic to point this out. And if you're a little frustrated 'cause you don't have any other answer than luck, you don't have to slander me personally. Again, I don't have to show that this run support has been or will be as high. Only that its possible this particular team (ala their veteran composition) took best advantage of Clemens attributes. Why didn't Mussina get this support? Elarton played on an offensively explosive team, which the Yankees are not. The point is that to defer his success to Luck is not a scientific determination. It is your attempt to explain what you refuse to explain or cannot explain with a superstitious declaration, good luck. Don't you find that odd?
So much for that, huh? And Clemens definitely didn't deserve the Cy Young in 2001, not even close. The East Coast bias is ridiculous. Run support should have nothing to do with it.
