The Cy Young, Sabermetrics, and Evaluating Pitchers

First, an announcement. I'm now contrbuting at Baseball Reflections. The gig is for more general baseball content, and is a weekly item. So far, there've been two articles, one on Jorge Posada, one on instant replay. Lots of good stuff over at the site. Stop by and take a look.


I keep mulling over the Cy Young results. I've mentioned before I don't have an issue with who won, but I've been wondering about the methodology used to select the winner.

My rankings for Cy Young went Lincecum, Vasquez, Carpenter, Wainwright. Keith Law came up with the same rankings, albeith with Wainwright in place of Carpenter for third, putting me in the interesting position of agreeing with Keith Law. I came to my order after looking at some of the traditional metrics (ERA, Wins, Strikeouts, etc), and some of the new statistics (FIP, WAR). I allowed the more sophisticated stats to trump the traditional ones. Fairly or not, Keith Law came under fire for his rankings, which caused me to re-examine mine.

For years, we in the sabermetric community have dissed wins as a measure of a pitcher's performance, and with good reason. The way managers use their pitching staff, especially their bullpens, has rendered the win pretty meaningless. If you've played any fantasy baseball in a league using wins as a statistical category, you've seen one of your relief pitchers get credit for a win after throwing 4 pitches, or one of your starters get a no decision after throwing 8 shutout innings because the closer came in and started throwing BP.

ERA is also out of vogue, mostly because of unearned runs being determined by the awarding of errors, an inherently subjective statistic based solely on the official scorer's determination as to whether the fielder should have made the play cleanly. We invented things like WHIP to better understand what made a pitcher successful. Then Tom Tango invented FIP, which attempted to boil down pitching evaluation to those things a pitcher controlled - allowing HR, walks and hit batsmen, and strikeouts. FIP removed the rest of the defense from the pitcher evaluation. Most people believe using FIP and stats of that nature have put pitcher evaluation on the right track.

What about the pitchers who pitch to contact, and use their defense and ballpark effectively? I think this comment, from a Cy Young post Cardinal 70 did, sums it up the sabermetric community's thoughts:

I'm sympathetic to the "Should groundball pitchers be punished for basically doing their job?" argument. However, that's an a priori argument that assumes that their approach is correct. In some way, such as in the aggregate, perhaps it is. But as far as an individual pitcher's contribution -- what he alone is able to do -- fielding-independent stats tell us more about the pitcher himself. If we are rewarding individual accomplishments, as it seems the Cy Young does, team philosophies are irrelevant. They're reflected, however, in a team's success.

The author of this comment isn't some schmoe. It's Pip from Fungoes, a man who's opinion I respect, an educated man who speaks intelligently about baseball in his blog posts. But I've come to disagree with this position. I think the SABR community is missing the forest for the trees.

The point of pitching isn't to give up no walks, no home runs, not hit anyone, and strike everybody out. The point is to get outs and keep guys off base. If you can't keep guys off base, then get outs and don't let them score. Strikeouts is only one of a variety of ways the pitcher can succeed in preventing runs.

The philosophy behind FIP is right on the money. It gives the pitcher credit for executing his pitches correctly. Most HR are allowed because a pitcher leaves the pitch in the fat part of the plate; perhaps a fastball with no movement or a breaking ball that spins but doesn't break. Walks, HBP - can't find the strike zone or can't control where the ball is going. Strikeouts: most times a K is because of a well thrown pitch in the exact location it was intended to go. No argument on the components of FIP.

However, pitchers don't pitch in a vacuum, and aren't the only guys on the field when pitching.
If Buzz Bissinger is to be believed, before each game the pitching coach, pitcher, and catcher get together to discuss how they will attack the opposing lineup. They discuss pitch location and tendencies of individual hitters, to develop a game plan for the night. It's reasonable to extend this preparation to the bench coach who positions the defense. I'm sure pitching coaches and bench coaches discuss the pitcher's approach to each hitter, so as to better position the defense. Pitchers who are able to execute their pitches and use that defensive alignment should get credit for it.

Think about it. How many times have you watched a game, and in inning after inning with guys on base the pitcher manages to get the hitter to roll the ball right to an infielder? Think that was by accident?

Evaluating pitchers should also take into the types of outs that are made. In Chris Carpenter's 7 September complete game shutout against Milwaukee, he gave up two balls to the outfield. Nine IP, 1 hit, 2 walks, 10 K's. A dominating performance. The fact that 26 of the 27 outs were recorded by an infielder puts a whole other dimension on it for me. Of the 17 hitters that did put the ball in play, 16 couldn't get it out of the infield, meaning they either were fooled, or the pitch location was so good they couldn't center the ball on their bat and drive it. Carpenter should get credit for having the ability to throw that kind of game.

When you get down to it, FIP, WAR, ERA, K, K/9, BB/K, LD% GB%, all these metrics are simply tools to develop a picture of how good the pitcher is. There's no one statistic, no magic formula, that spits out who's good and who's not, and basing a Cy Young vote on one or two of them is inherently misguided. Yes I realize I'm making fun of my vote. Choosing pitching rankings by evaluating all of the data available, tempering it with personal observation if possible, is a much better way of doing business.

Again, I don't disagree with how the Cy Young voting shook out. The top three vote getters were all deserving of the award, and the fact 10 points separated them is good evidence the voters were torn as to who was the best. Wins and ERA aren't the be-all and end-all for evaluating pitchers. But neither are FIP and WAR. And not taking the use of the defense into account when deciding which pitcher has performed the best over the course of a whole season is to not use all the data at our disposal. It does a disservice to pitchers that don't have Lincecum's stuff but are still mighty effective pitchers.

I disagree with the community. You can't properly evaluate pitching without including some statistical information on how they use their defense. This is, after all, a team game.

All Star Game thoughts

- Albert Pujols signing autographs for the troops was awesome, and actually caused some misting to appear in front of my eyes.

- Stan Musial looked old. I know he's 88 years young, but that's the most frail I've seen him. They should have done a montage to remind the public just how good Musial was. It also would have been cool if the players huddled around him after he arrived, a la Ted Williams in 1999.

- When President Bush II threw out the first pitch before Game 3 of the 2001 World Series, he looked like this:

Photo from Wikipedia.org

Appropriate attire for the location and time in our history.

President Obama, tonight:

Photo by AP

I know he's from Chicago. The event was in St Louis. MLB couldn't find the President a Cardinal jacket? Or even better, a 'All Star 2009' jacket of some sort? My wife thinks I look cute naked, but I'm not throwing out the first pitch of the All Star game in my birthday suit.

- Kudos to the fans for loudly cheering Mark Buehrle (St Louis Native), Ryan Howard (ditto), Dan Haren (former Cardinal), Jason Marquis (former Cardinal), Joe Torre (Cardinal great), Zack Greinke (marooned in Royals hell), and booing Ted Lilly (Cub).

- I don't think this is an All-Star Game AP will look back on fondly, other than the ovation he got during the introductions. E-3 in the first that led to a run and extended the inning. Oh for 3, nothing out of the infield. At least he made several nice plays with the glove during the game.

- Who would have predicted the Cardinal driving in a run would be Yadier Molina?

- Ryan Franklin - Solid.

- Curse you Carl Crawford. But only this night; this weekend I expect you to continue carrying my Rotisserie League Team.

- Its hard to win when you get one hit after Fielder's ground-rule double in the second inning - and that hit could have been called an error.

- The NL hasn't won an All-Star Game since before the advent of interleague play. So this is all Bud Selig's fault! Do we need a more compelling reason to ban interleague play?

- Trevor Hoffman in 2006, Chris Young in 2007, Heath Bell tonight. I decree no Padre pitcher shall be selected to the All-Star Game until after the NL wins again. I don't care if the Padres have a guy that's 17-0, with 17 consecutive no hitters and every batter retired via strikeout; he doesn't pitch.

Brad Thompson doesn't like success

Cards Clubhouse Mets preview, 23 June:

Thompson has filled in admirably for the injured Lohse, going 2-1 in four June starts. He has been sent down twice this season; he was positively awful at the start of the season, but quite good since (3.26 ERA after the first of May). It will be very interesting to see if he stays in the rotation when Lohse returns. He’s definitely pitched better than Wellemeyer since 1 May (based on ERA and wPA).

24 June: 5 IP, 5 ER, 1 HR, L
29 June: 6 IP, 4 ER, 1 HR, L

Thanks Brad. Like my credibility needed another hit.

Those Darn Bloggers!

Albert Pujols hit 2 home runs, and the Cardinals beat Cleveland 3-1 Saturday. Amazingly, or perhaps because Milwaukee's achilles heel (starting pitching) has returned to haunt them, St Louis finds itself only a half game out of first in the division.

The Redbirds are also only a half game out of the wild card (behind the Giants of all teams), even though its still too early to start tracking their position relative to the wild card. I typically don't start paying attention there until August 1.

We get to watch them play tonight in the nationally televised game against Cleveland. Carpenter vs Lee. Should be a good one.

Let's talk about blogging for a minute, as it was thrust into the national limelight this past week. I'm referring to the article speculating about Raul Ibanez steroid use, immediate reaction, the 'Outside the Lines' appearance by the author, and the subsequent fall out.

First, the fact that something written in a blog became a national story in less than 24 hours is exciting for all those who toil online (even this author, although I don't live with my mother and I don't have a basement). Much like the actress yearning to be discovered, or Roy Hobbs, this incident points out there is still a chance other people outside our immediate families and friend circles are reading what we write, and who knows where that will lead.

Second, the position that one should be very careful about accusing someone else in a concrete way (either on the air or in print) is valid, and correct. Hard evidence better be what I have before I make a statement like "Albert Pujols uses steroids", because if I can't back that up once the spotlight hits me, my credibility is gone forever - not to mention the punitive costs I will have to pay.

However, the prevailing opinion of the mainstream media that bloggers should be held to the same journalistic standards as they are is ridiculous. I am not compensated in any way for what I publish here. I don't get to sit in the press box game after game inhaling hot dogs and soda. I don't get to prowl the sidelines or dugouts of professional games, looking for snippets of information and getting 30 second sound bites every few innings. I don't have the funding to get tan sprayed on a regular basis and buy John Phillips suits.

I do this because I want to, and when I can fit it in around family and work responsibilities.

And, because the First Amendment guarantees me the right to free speech.

What was expressed by Jerrod Morris, and what you find in spades on this site, and on thousands of sites around the blog-o-sphere, is opinion. That's all it is. And I am entitled to my opinion. If you don't like my opinion, that's fine - read something else. But don't get 'holier than thou' about journalistic standards and responsibility. And don't tell me I have to attend courses on journalism before I can start posting, as if that would guarantee I'll follow moral and ethical codes of conduct. I'm sure most of the political correspondents on the New York Times staff went to journalism school, but they sure conveniently ignored those guidelines while repeatedly compromising national security with articles during the Bush Adminstration.

Specifically on steriod use. Did you know allegations of steroid use surfaced as early as 1988? Yep, surrounding Jose Canseco (see Rob Rains' book Tony LaRussa: Man On A Mission). Someone asked the question, then it was ignored by the mainstream media for 10 years, until someone saw a can of andro in Mark McGwire's locker and asked "Hmm, is that legal?". If the media in 1988 had the same courage that Jerrod Morris had this week, to at least put some thought into the question, the history of the last 21 years might have been different.

Oops, someone will probably take the preceeding paragraph and extrapolate I'm accusing Raul Ibanez of steroid use. I'm not. I'm pointing out those who seek to muzzle the blogger community do so not because they believe they do the job better, but because they're worried about job security and the status quo. That's it.

Ibanez's reaction to the story makes more sense if you understand his experience with the blogger community in Seattle. USS Mariner made no secret of their opinions regarding Ibanez's defense, which they backed up with defensive metrics (UZR, for example) widely accepted by the baseball community. Ibanez's '42-year old blogging in his mother's basement' comment is something he had said before about that website's authors. I think Raul is really sensitive to criticism from bloggers, which he believes is unjustified. For the record, USS Mariner had high opinions of Ibanez's hitting skill.

In short: we're here, and we're staying. If Ken Rosenthal, Geoff Baker, or any other writer doesn't like it, too bad. And if players like Raul Ibanez don't like the innuendo they could be using steroids when their offensive numbers show drastic improvement from one year to the next, then start demanding the Player's Union stop stonewalling on drug testing and make it more open - and public. Something that would go a long way to restoring the public's trust would be publishing the names of the 103 players who popped positive with Alex Rodriguez, then publicly testing every player in MLB - and releasing the results. At least then we would have a better feel for who used, and who is currently using, in MLB.

Calls get louder for Mo to make a move

You may be familiar with the word 'precipitous'. As an adjective, it means steep, and is typically used to describe long drop-offs (like half-dome at Yosemite). An alternate meaning for the word is 'extremely rapid, hasty, or abrupt'.

I was introduced to this word while stationed onboard my second submarine, in a critique of a evolution gone bad (not one I was involved in, mind you) by our XO. His point was, just because you have to take action doesn't mean you should do the first thing that comes to mind; there is time to think (albeit a short time) and consider options.

As the calls get louder for Mozeliak to make a move and improve this Cardinals team, I'm reminded of that event. And word.

We had a spirited discussion during the UCB radio hour about this, both on the air and in the chat room. Bernie's post today gets more into the argument. Losing 9-3 last night, with Lohse leaving after 39 pitches, doesn't help the mood, and in effect turns the heat up a little.

There are real holes to fill on this team. Third base is an offensive vacuum. Schumaker, bless his heart, is one of the worst defensive second sackers in baseball. Our outfielders aren't hitting. We have two and a half reliable starters at the moment (Carp, Wainwright, and the Mr. Hyde personal of Piniero). So what should we do?

Most analysts believe Mo has been working the phones and trying to get a deal done. It is a good assumption. His whole job revolves around his ability to field a winner. I have not been a GM; I've never even walked through a Major League team's front office. But I know how my office would be set up if I sat in the big chair:

- On this wall, would be my current 4o man roster.
- On that wall, would be every minor leaguer I controlled who was projected to be ML-ready within 2 years.

Then there would be binders. Oh, lots of binders. Who will be free agents at the end of the year, organized by position (and in position, organized by age). Each organization's 40 man roster. Each organization's farm system, highlighting guys we think could help us. And most importantly, each organization's weak areas - so I know what players to offer in a trade. Because, with rare exception, we're not dealing with idiots out there, and you're not going to get Babe Ruth for cash anymore.

So I'm sure Mo's done his homework. And I'm sure he's as frustrated as we are with the team's skittishness recently.

Bernie makes the case to make a move now. I got into an argument on the chatboard last night - although I can't remember which blog Tom writes for - concerning when a move should be made. Tom advocated 'soon, very soon.' I don't.

Because here's the point: the Cardinals are only 1 game out of first starting play tonight. One. As bad as the offense has been since 1 May, with the defensive holes we have, with only 2 reliable starters, we're only 1 game out. Clearly this team, as currently built, isn't going to make a deep run in October - or perhaps not even make it to October. But we certainly aren't in a 'make a move now or we're completely buried' position. At least, not yet.

Remember 2004? The Cardinals got swept in the World Series. By and large, one of the reasons cited (in addition to scoring 3 runs the last 3 games) was the lack of a power pitcher in the rotation (remember, Carpenter missed that post season due to a nerve injury in his pitching arm). There were calls for the Cardinals to make a move.

Then on 16 Dec that year the Braves traded for Tim Hudson. I happened to be home visiting my family when that happened; it was the lead story on the news. KMOX talk shows lit up with people clamoring. What's Jocketty doing? Why haven't the Cardinals made a move too?

Two days later we traded for Mark Mulder. Anyone out there still think trading Dan Haren for Mulder was a good move?

That was a precipitous move.

We don't need to repeat that mistake again.

Take your time, Mo. Make the trade that makes us better for the long term. Flip one of our mediocre outfielders for a third baseman or starting pitcher. Please don't trade Mitchell Boggs for 4 months of Joe Crede's bad back (as an example).

(And, if you're not tuning into the Wednesday United Cardinal Blogger Radio Hour, you're missing out.)

On The Road Again

No, not the Cardinals - me. From deep in the heart of Red Sox Country. The cool thing is, I've got the Red Sox game on the TV (Inge just singled to load the bases with no outs in the ninth - good luck Papelbon), and the Cardinals on MLB.com Gameday Audio.


Apparently, Holiday Inn offers the audio free to guests. Might as well take advantage, eh? Molina on third, Thurston on first, sixth inning.


Also in progress today, my fantasy team (the good one, not the UCB team) is working on the team sombrero. Yep, 0-19 so far today. Here's how ridiculous it is: I have A-Rod. Yanks are winning 12-3. A-Rod is 0-3. I'll keep you posted.


Cards just scored two to take a 4-2 lead on Stavinoha's double. Arroyo knocked out of the box. aaand my gameday audio just died. Ugh. Switching to the Reds feed. I had to do this right after Pujols' RBI double.

Speaking of the Reds, and that hit, Marty Brennaman (lead broadcaster) took exception to the scoring of AP's double. He thought, and stated on the air, if Adam Rosales' hit to Thurston was scored an error, so should have AP's. He then launched into a mini-tirade about home town scoring. I don't listen to WLW, and I don't live in the Armpit of America, so I don't know if ol' Marty gets as upset about the scoring in the Great American Bandbox as he does in St Louis, but he's out of the box.

Hey Marty: of all the things wrong with baseball in 2009, you're going to launch into a tirade about a judgement call by a guy who probably makes 1/10 of what you make if he's lucky? Go suck an egg. It's called 'scorer's decision' for a reason. Do you dispute the hit, or the bobble which led to the play being scored a double? Sounded like a clean hit on the radio. Have you not been paying attention to AP's season? He's stealing bases, taking the extra base, and legging out hits. Maybe, just maybe, you should give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who will watch 4 times as many Cardinals games as you will when it comes to scoring.

AP's double is up on Gameday.com. There were 2 out; Oquendo was waving Schumaker around even before Reds LF Nix let the ball get past him. Looks like an RBI to me.

What Kind of Leader Are You?

I took a week off, as previously mentioned, due to illness (mine and the family's).

In the interim, we learned:

- Selig doesn't want us to blame him for the steriods debacle;
- MLBPA former head Marvin Miller stated steroids never hurt or killed anyone, so what's the big deal;
- A-Roid held a press conference, at which he described taking a steroid he bought in the Dominican Republic;
- A-Roid was linked to a known steroids-tainted trainer;
- A-Roid was caught in a lie when the steroid he 'bought' in the DR wasn't available in the DR between 2001-03, with or without a prescription;
- BBWAA decided not to revoke A-Roid's 2003 MVP award; AND
- Lots of evidence got thrown out in the Barry Bonds trial unless the wife of his trainer testifies at the trial (trial begins a week from today).

Most of this stuff didn't surprise me (Selig's weaseling, A-Roid's caught in another lie, a liberal San Fran judge throwing out key evidence in a case against a favored adopted son). What did was the depth of the involvement, and lack of consciousness, the MLBPA had in this whole affair.

For years I believed the real evil in MLB was the owners. Greedy owners. Architects of the reserve clause. Constantly raising ticket prices. It's only since the steroids story broke this time around that I've realized the MLBPA are just as culpable, if not more so, than the owners.

They fought against testing.

They fought against punishment for positive steroids tests.

They allegedly warned players of upcoming tests so they could hide their drug use.

They only cared about how much money they could rake in and very little about the well-being of their players physically.

The whole thing stinks.

Steroid abuse had been long rumored at the MLB level, but back in 1998, when the first 'concrete' evidence of that abuse turned up (McGwire's can of creatine), baseball consistently refused to believe there was a problem, much less do anything about it. This continued for 4 more years before the Commissioner's office was finally, with pressure applied by CONGRESS, able to force testing of players, and ultimately to institute the steriod testing program as we know it today.

The blame for that lack of action rightly belongs to Selig. But not him alone. Donald Fehr and the rest of the union leadership are just a cupable and should be held in just as much contempt for what's happened to the game.

Selig had a singular chance to do something positive for baseball when this all appeared back in 1998. He did nothing.

Selig has gotten a do-over thanks to the leaking of A-Roid's positive test result. He, again, has a singular opportunity to do something positive for baseball.

He could make a stand.
He could suspend A-Roid, invoking the 1971 Commissioner decree that no drug use without a prescription is allowed.
He could release the rest of the 103 names into the public record.
He could revoke any post-season awards for any players who test positive for illegal substances.
He could ban for life all those with positive tests.

Public support would back him; the union would fight, but once exposed as the Machiavellian men they are, they would have to back down and accept what the Commissioner did.

And the Commissioner's office would wrest back some control over the game, control that has been slowly ceded to the players union over the last 40 years until now they are the ones running the league.

But he won't do a thing.

And Major League Baseball will continue to lose credibility, and with it will go the fans.