Wednesday, November 9, 2005
Bartolo Colon?
What's the point, what's the goddamn point in honoring players with various awards for their performances during the season if you're not going to give it to the right guy?
Bartolo Colon had a good year, yes. But both Mariano Rivera and Johan Santana had much better years. We would take the time t list why, but ESPN's Jayson Stark has already done so in a column that pretty much sums it all up. Here's the best passage:
We are so sick and tired of wins being giving so much favor when it comes to deciding who the best pitcher was. It's true: Wins are entirely dependent on how well the pitcher's offense does during games in which he pitches. You can allow exactly one run, no more, no less, in 35 consecutive complete games during a season and still go 0-35, if your offense gets shutout in every one of those games. Conversely, a guy who gives up exactly six runs every game can go 35-0 if only his offense scores seven or more each time he takes the mound.
Colon for Cy Young is an embarrassment.
And when the National League Cy Young winner is announced, you can bet it will be either Cris Carpenter or Dontrelle Willis. When it actually should be Roger Clemens. Check the Rocket's game log. He lost three straight 1-0 games in which he pitched seven inning and allowed precisely zero runs, all because his team couldn't get one measly run over.
Clemens went 13-8. So what? He lost five 1-0 games. His team scores two measly runs in every one of those and suddenly he's looking at potential record of 18-3. This is an illustration of why wins are not important in determining the league's best pitcher.
Willis went 22-10 with an ERA of 2.63. Carpenter was 21-5 with an ERA of 2.83. Clemens was 13-8 with an ERA of 1.87.
Throw out the win totals and just look at the ERAs.
Anyway, it won't be Clemens collecting yet another trophy. And that's a goddamn shame.
Bartolo Colon had a good year, yes. But both Mariano Rivera and Johan Santana had much better years. We would take the time t list why, but ESPN's Jayson Stark has already done so in a column that pretty much sums it all up. Here's the best passage:
Santana piled up 81 more strikeouts, beat Colon in ERA by 61 points, allowed almost two fewer baserunners for every nine innings, and had more innings pitched, complete games and shutouts.And that's not including the part where Mariano Rivera's season is detailed (although it is noted he is a closer, not starter, so the comparisons are a little harder to decipher).
Hitters who faced Colon had a batting average of .254 against him. The on-base percentage against Santana was .250. Any more objections, your honor?
True, Colon had five more wins than Santana (21 vs. 16). But since Santana actually pitched more innings, how was that win gap his fault? The win differential is a stat we can attribute almost completely to their offenses. It's that basic.
Santana piled up 81 more strikeouts, beat Colon in ERA by 61 points, allowed almost two fewer baserunners for every nine innings, and had more innings pitched, complete games and shutouts.
Colon got a ridiculous 1.32 more runs per game than Santana did. And Santana's totals in his last three no-decisions tell it all: 23 innings, 9 hits, 3 runs, 0 wins.
We are so sick and tired of wins being giving so much favor when it comes to deciding who the best pitcher was. It's true: Wins are entirely dependent on how well the pitcher's offense does during games in which he pitches. You can allow exactly one run, no more, no less, in 35 consecutive complete games during a season and still go 0-35, if your offense gets shutout in every one of those games. Conversely, a guy who gives up exactly six runs every game can go 35-0 if only his offense scores seven or more each time he takes the mound.
Colon for Cy Young is an embarrassment.
And when the National League Cy Young winner is announced, you can bet it will be either Cris Carpenter or Dontrelle Willis. When it actually should be Roger Clemens. Check the Rocket's game log. He lost three straight 1-0 games in which he pitched seven inning and allowed precisely zero runs, all because his team couldn't get one measly run over.
Clemens went 13-8. So what? He lost five 1-0 games. His team scores two measly runs in every one of those and suddenly he's looking at potential record of 18-3. This is an illustration of why wins are not important in determining the league's best pitcher.
Willis went 22-10 with an ERA of 2.63. Carpenter was 21-5 with an ERA of 2.83. Clemens was 13-8 with an ERA of 1.87.
Throw out the win totals and just look at the ERAs.
Anyway, it won't be Clemens collecting yet another trophy. And that's a goddamn shame.
