And you’re right about Law thinking he’s smarter than everyone else. But he just might be (the competition is not so great). I, as you probably know, have zero respect for the intelligence of the members of the BBWAA and for a large majority of the guys at ESPN. However, I do respect Law quite a bit, and I like his taste in novels. He just posted a new top 100 on his site and added a Richard Russo book I just coincidentally finished on the train this morning (The Risk Pool). If Buster Olney or someone like him had made a surprise vote like Law did, I would probably call him an idiot. With Law, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and take a closer look at the stats to see what he was thinking. I think Law won me over last winter when he responded to a chat question of “What’s Pabblo Sandovol’s ceiling?” by simply answering “about 300 lbs.” I’m not privy to Law’s reasoning here because I am not an ESPN insider. But I saw from your e-mail exchange that he cited the same innings difference as me with Carp. I still like Wainwright ahead of Vazquez, though. I owned them both all year, and Wainwright was the better pitcher.

But rather than criticizing K. Law for relying on obscure stats, you should be criticizing the old boys who refuse to recognize any of the newer metrics when performing player analysis. These guys rely on crap numbers like wins and losses and batting average and are too lazy to give it any further thought, much less familiarize themselves with the most elemental metrics. Look at the gold glove voting for the best evidence of such laziness. Absolutely no reason to ignore the defensive metrics there when there no other reliable stats. These guys go on reputation alone. Nothing more.

If I had an actual vote and studied all the stats, I probably would have gone Lincecum, Wainwright, Vazquez, Carp. I’m just glad Felix and Greinke didn’t get robbed by either Verlander or CC, like the talking idiots in New York had been hoping. I just wonder if the misplaced emphasis on wins will return when the BBWAA guys are faced with a candidate who has 20.

I really think you have to consider reputation, as silly as it sounds. There is in my opinion a marked difference between CC coming out and striking out the side, and Sergio Mitre doing it. If you come in knowing a guy can shut you down, and he starts off that way, it has a demoralizing effect mentally.

I think Law thinks he knows more than everyone, and cleaves to obscure stats. he cites WARP for Lincecum #1, but then ignores it for Javy #2.

Javier Vazquez did have a great year, and I have no problem with him third. And I have no problem with how the voting turned out. Those guys were all pretty close. And I like the fact that wins were ignores this year, unlike last year when Webb came in second ahead of Johan, which was complete horseshit.

“Lincecum led the NL in FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching) and WAR (Wins Above Replacement), both of which normalize a pitcher’s stats to account for the help he received from his defense, and he led both categories by wide margins.”

So a 2.77 FIP for Javy blew you away, but a 2.78 for Carp is ho-hum?

“He also led the NL in VORP, which adjusts for park but not for defense, by a narrow margin”

And who finished 2 and 3, Carpenter and Wainwright. No sign of Javy in the top 6 (Cain, Jurrjens and Haren being next)

“Carpenter’s innings total was the main reason he ended up off my ballot.”

So pitching better when both pitchers threw is not as valuable as pitching more?

Keith, you are writing certain arguments off as invalid because they dont agree with your vote. How is a lower ERA and all its various component ERAs not valid? Sure its not a unified theory of pitching, but its a comparitive matrix of pitching performance which clearly doesn’t favor your pick.

Yes, I’m still right. You’re just repeating yourself without
addressing the specific arguments I laid out in my article.

Take care.

On 11/19/09, cgenyce@aol.com wrote:
> So apply Jamesian stats like vorp, tRA and SNVAR. Carpenter still
> ahead.on If you don’t like the opinions of the Bwwaa folks, consider
> those of your colleagues at ESPN. You are still on an island. So if
> regular stats, advanced stats, writers and ESPN analysts all disagree,
> is this still fair?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 19, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Keith Law wrote:
>
>>
>> I don’t consider my fellow voters “some of the best minds in
>> baseball.” They’re sportswriters. They’re not analysts or scouts.
>>
>> You’re citing a ton of irrelevant stats, from won/lost record to the
>> shutout to GIDP to WHIP. My argument is there for everyone to see on
>> ESPN.com
>> . It was quite clear to me that Vazquez had a better year than
>> either Cardinal pitcher. The fact that other voters didn’t realize
>> this only confirms what I have said for years about the BBWAA -
>> they’re not good at evaluating player performance.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 3:27 PM, wrote:
>> It seems a bit odd then that none of your fellow voters, who I
>> imagine you will agree are some of the best minds in baseball,
>> seemed to agree with you. Even Carroll, who went with Haren in
>> third, saw Wainwright in first. What did you see in Vazquez that you
>> didn’t in Wainwright and Carpenter, especially such that you would
>> consider him significantly better than the runner up?
>>
>> Carpenter’s ERA was more than a half run better than Javy
>> Carpenter had a shutout, which Javy didn’t.
>> Carpenter induced 23 GIDP to Javy’s 10.
>> They had the same number of QS, but Carp had a better %
>> Carpenter had a superior P/PA and AGS
>> Carpenter had a lower WHIP
>> Carpenter had a lower BIPA and ERC
>>
>> And even if you consider all this a wash, a 17-4 record on a playoff
>> team beats a 15-10 on an also-ran.
>>
>> Please tell me what I’m missing. Can strikeouts and minor advantages
>> on DIPS and AGS really convince you of that much?
>>

>> —–Original Message—–
>> From: Keith Law
>> To: cgenyce@aol.com
>> Sent: Thu, Nov 19, 2009 3:04 pm
>> Subject: Re: Vazquez?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 2:53 PM, wrote:
>>
>> So Javy Vazquez was not only better than Carpenter and Wainwright,
>> but significanly so??
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> It’s a fair argument that Jurrjens was the best pitcher on Javy’s
>> own team.
>>
>> No, it’s not. Check the stats.
>>
>> But shafting Carpenter was just bad form.
>>
I didn’t “shaft” anyone. I ranked them in the order of their value.