Three Idiots Leave Halladay Off Their Cy Young Ballot
Holy motherfucking fuck, people. Holy effing eff. What the fucking cock?
Yes, the results of the AL Cy Young voting are in, and though we're long past the point where it's at all surprising to discover that the voting for an MLB award is completely fucked, and while I understand entirely that it's beyond pointless to get upset about awards voting... I'm sorry, I'm not going to be able to help myself here...
Why? Because there are 28 members of the BBRAA who vote for the AL Cy Young-- two representatives of each team in the league-- and Roy Halladay's vote totals were four first place votes, 15 second place, and six third place. Now, I'm no math whiz, but I'm pretty sure that means three absolute fucking idiots decided that Roy Halladay was, at best, the fourth best pitcher in the American League last year.
And yes, I'm well aware of how many absolutely bang-on words are written throughout the blogosphere each day-- many of them on this very site-- about how fucking ridiculous and wrong and awful and lazy and hackneyed certain sportswriters often are. So, in a way, this is entirely unsurprising. But the magnitude of their sheer fucking stupidity is pretty seriously incredible.
Do these assholes even watch or understand baseball??? I have no other choice but to assume not. Because how the hell do you even make the argument that it wasn't Halladay and Lee, then everybody else?
OK, maybe K-Rod, if you're really willing to go off the deep end and suggest that a one-inning guy deserves to be in the conversation, and that K-Rod, based on his number of saves alone, has to be that guy-- even though, as Joe Posnanski succinctly illustrates here, Joe Nathan was clearly better.
But no, three people left Halladay off the ballot in favour of either Matsuzaka, Mussina, Rivera, or fucking Ervin Santana. All of those guys had great seasons, but, uh... come the fuck on. Come the fuck on.
And I'm not even ranting on about this because I think it's a slight to Halladay or an affront to the team I support or anything like that-- I just think it's genuinely fucking stupid.
Incidentally, we know that Doc had Richard Griffin's vote-- but do we know that Rob Neyer ripped Griff to shreds over on some site called ESPN.com? Oh yes, he did.
Posts
38 comments:
Dumbasses. But what else is new?
Amazingly, two voters thought Dice-K had the second-best season among Lee, Halladay, K-Rod, and Dicey command.
At least no pitcher other than Roy and Cliff garnered a 1st-place vote.
fuck people
Griffin got bitch-slapped there.
In September I said that Roy Halladay was the best pitcher this past season and was my Cy Young, by far.
This is what I cited:
9 CGs vs 4 for Lee
2.78 ERA vs. 2.54
4.72 run support vs 6.13
2 more GS
lower WHIP
23 more IP
36 more Ks
better K/BB
better K/9
lower P/PA
lower P/IP
way better GB/FB ratio
lower opp. OPS and OBP
way lower opp. BA
higher AGS (avg game score)
The stats above don’t even
include qualitative stuff like Lee pitching in a worse division against worse teams in lower leverage situations each inning. Meanwhile Doc has pitched in the best division with at least 5 starts against BOS, TBR and NYY going 10-6 against them and constantly feeling like he needs to throw a shutout if he wants to win. And let’s say you don’t want to punish a pitcher for having more run support, well Doc would STILL have the better season.
I emailed this to Keith Law and he responded with this:
Halladay does have an innings pitched advantage, and he faced somewhat harder competition. However, Halladay benefited by playing in front of one of the majors' best defenses, lowering his BABIP (batting average allowed on balls in play); Lee played in front of a very mediocre defense in Cleveland.
Lee also had to face the Royals repeatedly. While this doesn't sound like much, the Royals were 35-24 in games started by an opposing left-hander, hitting .288/.343/.435 in those games. Lee beat them five times and posted a 2.63 ERA. In other words, the competition Lee faced was not that much easier than what Doc faced.
Lee led the majors in VORP:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=204030
He tied Halladay in PRC, but beat him in FIP (which tries to normalize ERA to take out the quality of a team's defense):
http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/?view=pitching&league_filter[]=1
Regardless of Keith Law's witchcraft (kidding) and Halladay getting only 4 first place votes (I'm surprised he even got that much), I still stand by my statement in September that Halladay was the best pitcher in 2008 and the BBWAA can go eat a bag of dicks.
"Halladay was the best pitcher in 2008 and the BBWAA can go eat a bag of dicks."
Amen.
I'm actually surprised Doc even got 4 first place votes. But fuck voters... fuck em all. Baseball awards suck. Fuck K-Rod and Dice-K... matter of fact, fuck all names with a - in em.
I just saw Jayson Stark on ESPN talking about it.
I'm paraphrasing...
"Yes, Roy Halladay had more Ks, better Opp OPS and OBP, more innings, 9 complete games...I understand that, but Cliff Lee went 22-3!! He lead the league in ERA and wins! No pitcher who has lead the league in those two has NOT the Cy Young award."
So basically, just because Lee qualifies some insane and antiquated rubric that has been applied for decades he's the winner, regardless of whether that rubric makes sense or not? Ok gotcha Jayson. And you're supposed to be one of the smarter baseball writers? Fuck off. FUCK. OFF.
Fuckin American cock-sucking-testicle-cradling cunts
No wonder the fucking world hates these shitmongering shits
On a side note, if they Jays' offense didn't suck donkey cock, Halladay would have won 25 games
But that aside, fucking writers' eyes must have been blocked by all the semin they bust on each other after jerking each other off
That could have happened I guess.
Maybe DJF could create an award for pitchers, and over time it would become the envy of pitching awards. "Who wants a Cy Young when you can have Eat Dick on your mantle?" they'll say.
(Of course, another name would work too ... just sticking with the current theme there.)
Good on Roy for being just plain awesome. I guess he wins the name-to-be-determined-later-but-currently-named Eat Dick.
I'm surprised your so shocked and pissed off. Hasn't the rookie of the year vote taught you anything about the BBRAA?
Fuck off Parkes
For next week's mailbag:
Dear Richard,
Intelligent baseball writing is scarce, and you are like a ray of sunshine on a deserted island during a cloudy day in an ocean of crap. You are a credit to your profession, just as you were when you worked with the Expos..and to top it all off you're a looker too. I just wish more people recognized this.
Now on to my question: A couple months ago, you said that wins were the most important thing in evaluating a pitcher's stats...now you're saying that Halladay should win the Cy Young, even though he had fewer wins than Cliff Lee. I'm finding myself confused, not only with your opinions, but in my feelings for you. Can you clarify both for me?
Love your fan,
John in Port Hope
To be sure we're clear, I would have voted Halladay, though there is totally a solid case for Lee. None of my indignation had anything to do with Lee winning over Halladay, because that was totally expected-- more wins and better ERA carries so much weight. These voters aren't going to get nearly as deep into this stuff as we all are-- and that's why these awards are bullshit and we really shouldn't pay them any mind, as difficult as that is to do some times. My beef, though, which I don't think anyone's missed, and I'm not sure why I'm even writing this, is with the three fuckjobs who decided there were THREE pitchers in the AL this year who were better than Halladay, which, by any standard that isn't completely retarded, is fucking preposterous.
Good article by Shi Davidi on the G&M website. Of course, he's stating the fucking obvious, but really, somebody intelligent writing for a major media source had to do it.
Basically, he says the Jays have 3 options: (1) raise payroll to seriously compete for a playoff spot, (2) keep payroll at the current level, negotiate some heavily backloaded free agent contracts (as if we don't have enough of those), and pray that everyone overachieves, and (3) go young, move some excess contracts (Overbay? Ryan?), and regroup for 2010 or '11.
Guess which one fucking JP and Rogers will go for?
http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081112.wspt_jays12/GSStory/GlobeSportsBaseball/home
On the good news front, bluejays.com reports that Aaron Hill is symptom-free and starting up his usual off-season routine. However, the article is bit fishy, in that nowhere does A-Dog actually state, "Not only am I symptom-free, but I have been for two months now, so stop fucking asking me, OK?"
That's the kind of quote I want to hear.
Brendan, I was thinking the EXACT same thing - Griff cannot defend Halladay's poor winning percentage(compared to Lee) and simultaneously argue that Burnett is a .500 pitcher (until this yr) -these baseball awards are retarded anyway; Nate McLouth wins a gold glove when some stats have him as practically the worst CF in the league...everyone would want Halladay starting a big game for them over Lee, so who gives a fuck about the Cy Young award
There is no way that Griffen should assert that Halladay deserves the Cy Young (based on the fact he faced tougher competition) without acknowledging that the Jays were a top 5-8 team in the majors in 2008 (but they faced harder competition in the AL East)...Fuck that hobo
Stoeten, did you just jack the blog post idea from this:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/bbwaa-get-your-act-together/
Anyway, I don't see a "solid case" for Lee unless you really value ERA, DIPS, and VORP that much. I'd rather look at the entire set of pitching stats, and they show that Doc dominated Lee.
And even with the ERA thing, Doc had a better Component ERA (ERC) which measures ERA based on hits and walks allowed rather than just actual runs allowed.
I've had my fair share of issues with Griffin but in his defense, when did ESPN.com become firejoemorgan.com? I thought journalists were supposed to show some kind of loyalty to each other.
it was a blog...not a column....isn't that the point of a blog - stream of conciousness sort of stuff?
roy doesnt need no stinkin' awards.. he already knows he's the greatest pitcher in the history of the jays, nay.. the entire universe
Maybe the CY simply doesn't go to the all around best pitcher dudes. Right or wrong, that might be the case. The two stats that pay the bills make writers vote that way.
Not surprising 3 didn't include him. I am guessing some numb nuts from the south side of Chicago, for sure a Masshole, but I'm stumped on where other completely stupid writers come from. Maybe TB, doubt we're super close friends with them.
So leaving Roy off 3 ballots isn't just from being stupid, I believe it's vindictive. Kinda like I could never have voted for Roger in his Boston days. Not right, but it's tough to make a check mark for someone you wish herpes on.
I don't know if it's being vindictive. I assume someone is being a homer and including Dice-K, Mussina, Rivera or E. Santana, and then being dumb enough to put K-Rod over Roy. Just one dumb decision compounding another.
As for journalists sticking together, yes, it's a blog, but also, that's kind of a bullshit idea that journalists should stand up for each other, regardless of how ridiculous somebody is being. I have no problem with it (surprise, surprise).
SP, no, I didn't get the idea from anywhere else, but it's not surprising that I was thinking the same thing as someone else. Somebody in the comments of a post below pointed out the fact that Roy was only on 25 ballots before I saw the totals anywhere else-- maybe they saw the article you quoted.
Also, um... "unless you really value ERA, DIPS and VORP that much". Yeah, I'm going to have to value those.
As for the Cy criteria, it's not based on who's the best pitcher-- that's definitely Halladay-- but who had the best year. Slight difference.
If Doc's pitching in NYC he's got about four Cy Youngs by now. Blame Canada!
Stoeten, ERA is a function of skill but also depends heavily on your competition.
Look at what Neyer said:
This year in the American League, 39 pitchers pitched enough innings to qualify for the ERA title.
The hitters Halladay faced finished the season with a .766 OPS, No. 2 out of 39.
Lee's opposition finished with a .735 collective OPS, No. 38 out of 39.
As for DIPS and FIP, which are defense-adjusted ERA stats. Doesn’t Lee’s FIP-ERA difference and DIP% ratio (DIPS/ERA) being higher than Doc’s mean that Lee was the one who got luckier as far as defense?
Lee:
ERA: 2.54, DIPS: 2.95, FIP: 2.92
FIP-ERA: 0.38, DIP%: 1.16
Halladay
ERA: 2.78, DIPS: 3.07, FIP: 3.09
FIP-ERA: 0.31, DIP%: 1.11
Lee’s biggest advantage over Halladay (ERA) is completely mitigated when you consider the competition gap between the two.
So all Lee has going for him is VORP, WPA, and W-L record. Is THAT enough to give him the Cy Young? Hell fucking no.
Also interesting to note is that our #1 defense actually ended up HURTING Burnett and McGowan. Their DIPS and FIP are lower by about half a run each compared to their ERA. Meanwhile Litsch and Marcum were among the biggest benefactors of their defense in the AL. They were top 10 in the AL in DIP%.
By the way, Doc also had 5 "tough losses" (losses in a Quality Start). Lee had none.
Seriously?
I'm pretty sure that the fact there is a strong argument for Lee is bolstered by the ways you're having to stretch to make the case for Halladay here. But quite honestly, I don't understand FIP or DIPS deeply enough to really say anything about your conclusions here. Though, even if you're right, I still don't think that means there isn't a solid case for Lee (which is all I ever said). That's probably an unsatisfactory response, but I still just don't buy that the tougher competition alone mitigates Lee's ERA advantage, or that you've factored in defense here well enough to be conclusive. And frankly, I'd probably give more weight to VORP and WPA than some of the stuff you're talking about-- though that's just because I understand them a little better. And regardless, I do think those two things alone, plus the raw ERA, are enough to give Lee a strong case. It's very close between these two.
Wow. You don't understand them, so you discard them and only consider the stats you do understand. Awesome. How is that any different from the BBWAA cavemen again?
Looking at stats that reflect a player's actual quality of performance shouldn't be considered a stretch. If anything, looking at wins and ERA to give Lee the Cy is the stretch. Also, pitchers' WPA is heavily affected by offense, especially for starters. Giving up 1 run when your offense has scored 3 runs of support costs you way less than giving up 1 run when your offense has scored 0 runs of support.
And by the way, Neyer said the difference between 2.54 and 2.78 was 6 measly runs (one measly run per month), which as I said earlier is easily mitigated by the competition game. So to argue that ERA trumps the mountains of other raw and advanced stats in Doc's favor is ridiculous.
^ competition gap*
And didn't 4 of those 6 runs come in one game against the Rays when Crawford got a BS fair call on a swinging bunt which led to a Longoria slam he should never have had a chance to hit?
OK, maybe our differences here are semantic. Perhaps I didn't say it well enough, but I don't necessarily disagree your numbers-- some of it I don't quite grasp enough to fully, in public, say I completely agree with (and then I get shit on for actually admitting I don't understand something--thanks!-- and hey! and right after you accused me of plagiarizing this post, dickhead), but I don't disagree.
Unfortunately, that was never the point. All I've been saying is that there is a strong "case" for Lee, and we're disagreeing on what constitutes a case. I'm not going to start digging around to see what measures that meet your (seemingly reasonable) standards might suggest that Lee was better than Doc-- maybe there aren't even any. But the fact that some of these lesser (in your opinion) measures are so close, or are in Lee's favour, is more than enough for my definition of a "strong case", even if, ultimately, a reasonable person would decide in Doc's favour. So... if you want to argue about the definition of a case, go right ahead. If you want to convince someone that Halladay deserved the award, you're preaching to the choir.
WHAT IS THIS "STRONG CASE" FOR LEE??? Everyone keeps saying this. Please tell me what it is.
And, the definition of a case?? What are you even talking about man! You put so many disclaimers and conditional statements in your posts that no one can ever know for sure what you're saying or arguing.
And you can't say:
"Also, um... 'unless you really value ERA, DIPS and VORP that much'. Yeah, I'm going to have to value those."
..and then say you don't even fully grasp them, but you'll use them to argue for Lee anyway. That is retarded.
A couple measures are in Lee's favor (ERA, DIPS, FIP), but I have clearly shown they are either negligible or irrelevant because of the competition or run support gap. All that's left is VORP and the questionable WPA stat. So that's it, there is no "strong case" for Lee.
Halladay was obviously not the best pitcher in the MLB this year but it is retarded how people left him of the ballot completely.
But Cliff Lee really rebounded and sparkled this season as opposed to last season and I think the guys felt sorry for him and just wanted to give him something before he retired.
Post a Comment