2008 Cy Young Thread-NEW and IMPROVED!

[dbacksfan95]

I am done using my own methods to figuere out who should be in the polls. Therefore, I am now going to use Zagi's charts to place pitchers in the poll. Everybody seems fine with his formula, therefore that's what we will use. Thanks Zagi.
*Read Before Voting*
Please only pick one pitcher from the AL and one from the NL. Thanks.

[dbacksfan95]

I went with Kazmir and Webb. CC has been good lately but he has to keep it up to get my final vote.

[redlegsfan21]

I went with Cliff Lee and Tim Lincecum.

[STLCards2]

I went with Kazmir and Webb. CC has been good lately but he has to keep it up to get my final vote.

Wrong Diamondback:

Halliday and Haren

[OleMissCub]

Cole Hamels, but no Zambrano?

Carlos Zambrano, 12-4, 2.80 ERA, 161 ERA+ > Cole Hamels, 9-6, 3.27 ERA, 137 ERA+

I don't see any pitcher in this poll that is that far ahead of Z right now in the NL, other than Haren.

Zambrano: 12-4, 2.80 ERA, 161 ERA+, 1.221 WHIP

Dempster: 12-4, 2.90 ERA, 151 ERA+, 1.168 WHIP
Hamels: 9-6, 3.27 ERA, 137 ERA+, 1.043 WHIP
Haren: 10-5, 2.56 ERA, 178 ERA+, 0.960 WHIP
Lincecum: 11-3, 2.78 ERA, 155 ERA+, 1.255 WHIP
Sabathia: 10-8, 3.33 ERA, 129 ERA+, 1.173 WHIP
Sheets: 10-4, 3.14 ERA, 138 ERA+, 1.176 WHIP
Volquez: 12-4, 2.77 ERA, 163 ERA+, 1.311 WHIP
Webb: 14-4, 3.14 ERA, 145 ERA+, 1.144 WHIP


Oh, and I'm going to go with Lee and Lincecum.

[Solrac]

Dangit...Voted for Volquez before i noticed Haren.

I'm going with Lee adn Haren here.

[Zagi-CRO]

I am done using my own methods to figuere out who should be in the polls. Therefore, I am now going to use Zagi's charts to place pitchers in the poll. Everybody seems fine with his formula, therefore that's what we will use. Thanks Zagi.
*Read Before Voting*
Please only pick one pitcher from the AL and one from the NL. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

My vote goes to Lee and Lincecum.

[Zagi-CRO]

Cole Hamels, but no Zambrano?

Carlos Zambrano, 12-4, 2.80 ERA, 161 ERA+ > Cole Hamels, 9-6, 3.27 ERA, 137 ERA+

I don't see any pitcher in this poll that is that far ahead of Z right now in the NL, other than Haren.


Now, it looks like you said...

CYP Name W L ERA IP SO WHIP
6.28 Tim Lincecum 10 3 2.79 138.2 152 1.23
6.22 Brandon Webb 14 4 3.14 146 124 1.14
6.01 Dan Haren 10 5 2.56 140.2 128 0.96
5.89 Edinson Volquez 12 3 2.81 125 132 1.31
5.83 CC Sabathia 10 8 3.33 162 157 1.17
5.44 Carlos Zambrano 12 4 2.8 141.2 96 1.22
5.40 Cole Hamels 9 6 3.27 154.1 135 1.04
5.28 Ryan Dempster 11 4 2.99 138.2 117 1.17
5.27 Ben Sheets 10 4 3.14 140.1 119 1.18
5.19 Rich Harden 5 2 2.1 94.1 122 1.1
5.10 Johan Santana 9 7 2.93 147.2 125 1.19
5.08 Jake Peavy 8 6 2.67 114.2 115 1.14
4.94 Ch Billingsley 10 9 3.25 127.1 135 1.3
4.63 Aaron Cook 13 6 3.46 153.2 73 1.23


A criteria for Cy Award are:
ERA, wins, SO
so Zambrano has a good ERA and wins but struggled with SO.

[wilkerson_rulz-06]

Forgot Rich Harden. :p

Voted for Duke and Hamels.

EDIT: damn, wanted to pick Haren.

[KCGHOST]

I still like Lee and Haren.

[dbacksfan95]

Forgot Rich Harden. :p

Voted for Duke and Hamels.

EDIT: damn, wanted to pick Haren.

Duke? He's not even in the poll.

[redlegsfan21]

Duke? He's not even in the poll.

Duke is Duchscherer's nickname, plus it's much easier to spell.

[redlegsfan21]

I hope people are actually voting for people who QUALIFY for the ERA title. That means Scott Kazmir and C.C. Sabathia are NOT elgible. A true voter is not going to look at AL stats for the NL Cy Young.

[dbacksfan95]

Duke is Duchscherer's nickname, plus it's much easier to spell.

thought he meant zack duke.

[OleMissCub]

thought he meant zack duke.

Definitely plausible to think that he would have meant a guy who is 4-9 with a 5.27 ERA this year.

[dbacksfan95]

Definitely plausible to think that he would have meant a guy who is 4-9 with a 5.27 ERA this year.

now we have to be crabby cause zambrano isn't in the poll

[Captain Cold Nose]

I hope people are actually voting for people who QUALIFY for the ERA title. That means Scott Kazmir and C.C. Sabathia are NOT elgible. A true voter is not going to look at AL stats for the NL Cy Young.

Even a false voter won't do that. This isn't a Rick Sutcliffe situation here.

[redlegsfan21]

Even a false voter won't do that. This isn't a Rick Sutcliffe situation here.

Well, there have been three votes for C.C. already and Kazmir has two votes somehow too.

[redlegsfan21]

now we have to be crabby cause zambrano isn't in the poll

dbacksfan95, if you want to add Zambrano, one of the moderators can do it.

[dbacksfan95]

dbacksfan95, if you want to add Zambrano, one of the moderators can do it.

OleMiss, don't argue with me about not including Zambrano. As I stated in the First Post, I am using Zagi's method, not mine. It was not my decision.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Well, there have been three votes for C.C. already and Kazmir has two votes somehow too.

Funny, but as I'm typing this a certain Cypress Hill song is on the XM station I'm listening to.

Combined records won't count, so you can forget about Sabbathia. And Kazmir? I don't see how with plenty of pitchers with better numbers. Some pitchers have almost as many wins as he has starts.

Ah, Primus.

[Captain Cold Nose]

dbacksfan95, if you want to add Zambrano, one of the moderators can do it.

This is a public forum, it is his right to voice a complaint.

Someboody is always going to be missed. That's a way to get legit people on it.

[redlegsfan21]

Funny, but as I'm typing this a certain Cypress Hill song is on the XM station I'm listening to.

Combined records won't count, so you can forget about Sabbathia. And Kazmir? I don't see how with plenty of pitchers with better numbers. Some pitchers have almost as many wins as he has starts.

Ah, Primus.

My problem with Kazmir is that he does not yet qualify for the ERA crown. He isn't the worst choice but I want someone who will have 162 IP at the end of the season or be like Eric Gagne back in the day.

[Captain Cold Nose]

My problem with Kazmir is that he does not yet qualify for the ERA crown. He isn't the worst choice but I want someone who will have 162 IP at the end of the season or be like Eric Gagne back in the day.

That's surely fair. Kazmir might well be the best pitcher in the NL, he's in the argument. But unless he wants to be Eric Bedard, he needs to go beyond 5, 6 innings a game. The best pitcher for the year should be able to string some innings together if he's a full time starter.

[OleMissCub]

OleMiss, don't argue with me about not including Zambrano. As I stated in the First Post, I am using Zagi's method, not mine. It was not my decision.

I just wonder if you are still ROFL like you were earlier this year about putting Zambrano on a Cy Young poll even though he's finished in the top 5 in voting 3 of the past 4 seasons and has a good chance of doing so again.

fans of zambrano for Cy Young,:rofl:

[giantsrule]

lincecum and lee...

[dbacksfan95]

I just wonder if you are still ROFL like you were earlier this year about putting Zambrano on a Cy Young poll even though he's finished in the top 5 in voting 3 of the past 4 seasons and has a good chance of doing so again.

I thought we solved our issues. I am not saying that Zambrano shouldn't be in the poll. It was not my decision. I would have no problem if the Mods put him in.

[NYRoss]

Lincecum and Kazmir

[Captain Cold Nose]

Zambrano is now on the poll. No need to goad him, OleMiss.

[dbacksfan95]

Zambrano is now on the poll. No need to goad him, OleMiss.

Thanks Capt.

[OleMissCub]

Zambrano is now on the poll. No need to goad him, OleMiss.

An unnecessary step considering that most of the regulars on this site have probably already voted, including myself.


p.s. I'm not trying to sound like a jerk.

[Captain Cold Nose]

An unnecessary step considering that most of the regulars on this site have probably already voted, including myself.


p.s. I'm not trying to sound like a jerk.

I know. That's always the problem with polls, somebody gets left out, especilaly when the polls are formulaic-driven.

You're not a jerk.

[dbacksfan95]

An unnecessary step considering that most of the regulars on this site have probably already voted, including myself.


p.s. I'm not trying to sound like a jerk.

If you have that much confidence in Carlos Zambrano being the next Cy Young, why would you vote for anybody else? That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Dalkowski110]

"That makes no sense whatsoever."

It would make sense to me. Consider that you had no "other" or "none" option for the poll and requested the voter to vote for two of the listed candidates...

[dbacksfan95]

"That makes no sense whatsoever."

It would make sense to me. Consider that you had no "other" or "none" option for the poll and requested the voter to vote for two of the listed candidates...

Why vote for somebody that you don't think should win it?

[Dalkowski110]

"Why vote for somebody that you don't think should win it?"

Like I said, you state in your opening post "Please vote for one AL and one NL pitcher." You also didn't post a poll option "other." In any poll like this without a way to opt out (i.e. an "other" option), people will vote for what they're given.

[dbacksfan95]

"Why vote for somebody that you don't think should win it?"
Like I said, you state in your opening post "Please vote for one AL and one NL pitcher." You also didn't post a poll option "other." In any poll like this without a way to opt out (i.e. an "other" option), people will vote for what they're given.

You know theres an actual quote button,right? Like I said before, it was not my decision whether or not to include Carlos Zambrano.

[Dalkowski110]

"You know theres an actual quote button,right?"

And I choose not to use it. What's the big deal (that is a serious question, btw)?

"Like I said before, it was not my decision whether or not to include Carlos Zambrano."

But what does this have to do with including an "other" or "none/please specify" option? Like I said, people will vote for what's given. You instructed them to and they did. And now you're frustrated that they did exactly what you asked? :confused:

[dbacksfan95]

"You know theres an actual quote button,right?"

And I choose not to use it. What's the big deal (that is a serious question, btw)?

"Like I said before, it was not my decision whether or not to include Carlos Zambrano."

But what does this have to do with including an "other" or "none/please specify" option? Like I said, people will vote for what's given. You instructed them to and they did. And now you're frustrated that they did exactly what you asked? :confused:

It doesn't appear that I'm the one that's frustrated. You seem to be the one getting all worked up about there not being an "other" option.

[Dalkowski110]

"You seem to be the one getting all worked up about there not being an 'other' option."

Nope. Just pointing out to you that you shouldn't be surprised or perplexed if someone votes for what's given/does exactly what you asked.

[dbacksfan95]

"You seem to be the one getting all worked up about there not being an 'other' option."

Nope. Just pointing out to you that you shouldn't be surprised or perplexed if someone votes for what's given/does exactly what you asked.

Whatever. I don't care.

[Dalkowski110]

"I don't care."

Okay. But why ask if you don't care?

[dbacksfan95]

All I'm saying is if you like Zambrano that bad and want him to win, why not just wait until he gets put in the poll to vote? Captain Cold Nose said he would put Zambrano in before OleMissClub even voted. Are we cool now?

[Dalkowski110]

"why not just wait until he gets put in the poll to vote?"

Well, I voted when you first opened up the poll. I.e., when there were no indications it was going to change. Am I cool now? I've been calm, albeit questioning. Just proposing something, maybe the next time you make a poll. Like you said, no need to get worked up.

[redlegsfan21]

If anyone wants to change their vote from some NL pitcher to Zambrano, just send CCN or me a PM and we'll be happy to do it. Just tell us who you originally voted for.

[OleMissCub]

All I'm saying is if you like Zambrano that bad and want him to win, why not just wait until he gets put in the poll to vote? Captain Cold Nose said he would put Zambrano in before OleMissClub even voted. Are we cool now?

Umm...I voted on Wed.

I still want to know why you thought it was ":rofl:" that someone would want Zambrano on a Cy Young watch poll.

Top 5 finishes in Cy Young voting in the last five years:

Johan Santana - 4 times ('04,'05,'06,'07)
Roy Oswalt - 3 times ('04,'05,'06)
Carlos Zambrano - 3 times ('04,'05,'06)
Roy Halladay - 3 times ('03,'06,'07)
Brandon Webb - 2 times ('06,'07)
Chris Carpenter - 2 times ('05,'06)
Francisco Rodriguez - 2 times ('04,'06)

So, if someone suggested that Santana, Oswalt, or Halladay should have been on a Cy Young watch around the start of the season, you would have ":rofl:" as well?

[STLCards2]

Haren is leading Linceum by about 20 ERA+ points, with a handful more IP to boot. If Haren recieved Webb's run support early in the season, there would be absolutely zero debate now as to who should be the Cy favorite.

[STLCards2]

I alos looked closer at Lee vs. Halliday, and feel Lee is probably the fromt-runner now. Halliday has thrown 20+ more innings, but I don't think that is enough to make up for Lee's 20 point ERA+ advantage.

Scott Kazmir? He is 55th in the league in IP. 55th! That means that Roy Halliday has pitched about 10 full 7 IP games worth more than Kazmir, while posting an ERA+ that is about the same. Kazmir?

[Westlake]

Haren is leading Linceum by about 20 ERA+ points, with a handful more IP to boot. If Haren recieved Webb's run support early in the season, there would be absolutely zero debate now as to who should be the Cy favorite.

Haren is hitting his stride, he's probably in his best streak of the season. Meanwhile Lincecum has just gotten off a few bad starts. There's no clear favorite to me right now, and I don't even look at W-L. Give it another month or so, IMO.

[STLCards2]

Haren is hitting his stride, he's probably in his best streak of the season. Meanwhile Lincecum has just gotten off a few bad starts. There's no clear favorite to me right now, and I don't even look at W-L. Give it another month or so, IMO.

Of course it is too early, but I would pick haren now if I had a choice.

I can't get over Kazmir:

Kazmir would have to pitch about seven 7 IP games 20% more effectively than he has so far to catch Lee. Kazmir?

[Solrac]

I went with Kazmir and Webb. CC has been good lately but he has to keep it up to get my final vote.

A diamondback fan with the wrong diamondback.:confused:

Danny Haren
174 OPS+
0.962 WHIP
134/24 SO/BB

Brandon Webb
150 OPS+
1.130 WHIP
130/39 SO/BB

I just wonder if you are still ROFL like you were earlier this year about putting Zambrano on a Cy Young poll even though he's finished in the top 5 in voting 3 of the past 4 seasons and has a good chance of doing so again.

Carlos Zambrano
162 ERA+
1.221 WHIP
96/46 SO/BB

I dare say Zambrano is better than Webb.

[Solrac]

Can anyone change my votes??
I voted for Lee and Volquez initially but after further review and now that i really saw who is on the ballot i would like to change my vote for Duchscherer and Haren :cap:

Thanks in advance.

[redlegsfan21]

Can anyone change my votes??
I voted for Lee and Volquez initially but after further review and now that i really saw who is on the ballot i would like to change my vote for Duchscherer and Haren :cap:

Thanks in advance.

Done.

Everyone, just contact a mod if you want to change your vote, just make sure you include who you originally voted for.

[Zagi-CRO]

Aug/04th
CYP= (60*ERA +2*L -12*W -IP -1.2*SO)/ IP +5

Name CYP W ERA SO
Cliff Lee 2.91 14 2.58 125
Roy Halladay 3.26 12 2.89 139
Ervin Santana 3.31 12 3.38 143
Mike Mussina 3.58 14 3.44 90
A.J. Burnett 3.65 13 4.48 151
Felix Hernandez 3.71 7 3.04 127
Zack Greinke 3.89 9 3.93 131
Josh Beckett 4.03 9 4.15 127

Edinson Volquez 2.86 13 2.74 137
Tim Lincecum 2.99 10 2.72 163
Brandon Webb 3.05 15 3.04 130
Dan Haren 3.15 11 2.62 134
Ryan Dempster 3.22 12 2.9 126
Ch Billingsley 3.24 11 3.04 143
CC Sabathia 3.30 11 3.28 166
Carlos Zambrano 3.40 12 2.76 98
Jake Peavy 3.40 8 2.59 122

[dbacksfan95]

Give us an update Zagi!

[yamsi12]

lincecum.

the kid is a machine.

[Zagi-CRO]

Give us an update Zagi!

Zagi gives...


CYP Name W L ERA SO IP
2.67 Cliff Lee 18 2 2.43 141 177.2
2.98 Roy Halladay 15 9 2.71 166 195.2
3.16 Ervin Santana 13 5 3.39 166 169.2
3.29 A.J. Burnett 16 8 4.43 176 170.2
3.36 Mike Mussina 16 7 3.45 109 159.1
3.50 Arm Galarraga 12 4 3.04 95 136.1
3.52 John Danks 10 6 3.16 130 156.2
3.54 Jus Duchscherer 10 8 2.54 95 141.2

2.64 Tim Lincecum 13 3 2.49 196 173.2
2.70 Brandon Webb 19 4 2.74 153 184
2.81 Edinson Volquez 15 4 2.83 153 156
2.93 Ryan Dempster 15 5 2.85 153 170.2
2.96 CC Sabathia 14 8 2.99 192 195.1
3.07 Dan Haren 14 6 3.12 160 173
3.13 Ch Billingsley 12 9 3.09 166 160.1
3.16 Johan Santana 12 7 2.64 153 184



CYP has a similar value as an ERA... the lowest CYP is the best...
/IPv> 129/

Obviously, we have two main contenders for the AL CY Award --- Lee and Halladay... for the NL Award there are more... I think five contenders - Lincecum, Webb, Volquez, Dempster and CC Sabathia or Haren, even...

[redlegsfan21]

Zagi gives...


CYP Name W L ERA SO IP
2.67 Cliff Lee 18 2 2.43 141 177.2
2.98 Roy Halladay 15 9 2.71 166 195.2
3.16 Ervin Santana 13 5 3.39 166 169.2
3.29 A.J. Burnett 16 8 4.43 176 170.2
3.36 Mike Mussina 16 7 3.45 109 159.1
3.50 Arm Galarraga 12 4 3.04 95 136.1
3.52 John Danks 10 6 3.16 130 156.2
3.54 Jus Duchscherer 10 8 2.54 95 141.2

2.64 Tim Lincecum 13 3 2.49 196 173.2
2.70 Brandon Webb 19 4 2.74 153 184
2.81 Edinson Volquez 15 4 2.83 153 156
2.93 Ryan Dempster 15 5 2.85 153 170.2
2.96 CC Sabathia 14 8 2.99 192 195.1
3.07 Dan Haren 14 6 3.12 160 173
3.13 Ch Billingsley 12 9 3.09 166 160.1
3.16 Johan Santana 12 7 2.64 153 184



CYP has a similar value as an ERA... the lowest CYP is the best...
/IPv> 129/

Obviously, we have two main contenders for the AL CY Award --- Lee and Halladay... for the NL Award there are more... I think five contenders - Lincecum, Webb, Volquez, Dempster and CC Sabathia or Haren, even...

C.C. Sabathia doesn't have a chance since you can only look at his NL stats for consideration.

[gman5431]

i was shocked to see that Brandon Webb, after my vote, only has 2 votes - he is going to win the award and since he is single handedly carrying AZ to the playoffs - he should. Think Linececum and Edinson are the runners up.

G Man

[philkid3]

i was shocked to see that Brandon Webb, after my vote, only has 2 votes - he is going to win the award and since he is single handedly carrying AZ to the playoffs - he should. Think Linececum and Edinson are the runners up.

G Man

How is Webb single-handedly carrying the D'backs to the playoffs when he has a teammate with a 3.39 xFIP (second in the NL behind only Webb) over 173 innings? Webb is far from doing it single-handedly. Though I'd probably agree with some research that, at this point, he's surpassed Haren for the Cy Young vote, Haren has still been one of the very best pitchers in the NL this season and to say Webb has carried the D'backs single handedly is to ignore his teammate's great season.

One thing you should notice is this poll has been open for quite a while, and because pitchers at a top level can make a large jump or drop over a couple starts, things have changed since this poll was opened. At the time, Webb was pretty clearly behind a few guys. At this point, he's arguably ahead of them. If the poll was wiped clean and people voted again today, I'm sure Webb would get a lot more votes than he has right now. And remember, we were voting on who we thought should win at that point, not who will win at the end of the season.

Also: Volquez? Have you checked his numbers lately?

[yamsi12]

Zagi gives...


CYP Name W L ERA SO IP
2.67 Cliff Lee 18 2 2.43 141 177.2
2.98 Roy Halladay 15 9 2.71 166 195.2
3.16 Ervin Santana 13 5 3.39 166 169.2
3.29 A.J. Burnett 16 8 4.43 176 170.2
3.36 Mike Mussina 16 7 3.45 109 159.1
3.50 Arm Galarraga 12 4 3.04 95 136.1
3.52 John Danks 10 6 3.16 130 156.2
3.54 Jus Duchscherer 10 8 2.54 95 141.2

2.64 Tim Lincecum 13 3 2.49 196 173.2
2.70 Brandon Webb 19 4 2.74 153 184
2.81 Edinson Volquez 15 4 2.83 153 156
2.93 Ryan Dempster 15 5 2.85 153 170.2
2.96 CC Sabathia 14 8 2.99 192 195.1
3.07 Dan Haren 14 6 3.12 160 173
3.13 Ch Billingsley 12 9 3.09 166 160.1
3.16 Johan Santana 12 7 2.64 153 184



CYP has a similar value as an ERA... the lowest CYP is the best...
/IPv> 129/

Obviously, we have two main contenders for the AL CY Award --- Lee and Halladay... for the NL Award there are more... I think five contenders - Lincecum, Webb, Volquez, Dempster and CC Sabathia or Haren, even...

Lincecum's #'s are off. He's 14-3 has 200 Ks and his ERA is 2.48

and considering that lincecum plays for a team as bad as the giants, its amazing he is 14-3. Not to mention the Giants have blown 6 games for him after he's left in the 7th or 8th, and thats not counting when he got dinged on the knee a few weeks ago which would have been #7.

[gman5431]

How is Webb single-handedly carrying the D'backs to the playoffs when he has a teammate with a 3.39 xFIP (second in the NL behind only Webb) over 173 innings? Webb is far from doing it single-handedly. Though I'd probably agree with some research that, at this point, he's surpassed Haren for the Cy Young vote, Haren has still been one of the very best pitchers in the NL this season and to say Webb has carried the D'backs single handedly is to ignore his teammate's great season.

One thing you should notice is this poll has been open for quite a while, and because pitchers at a top level can make a large jump or drop over a couple starts, things have changed since this poll was opened. At the time, Webb was pretty clearly behind a few guys. At this point, he's arguably ahead of them. If the poll was wiped clean and people voted again today, I'm sure Webb would get a lot more votes than he has right now. And remember, we were voting on who we thought should win at that point, not who will win at the end of the season.

Also: Volquez? Have you checked his numbers lately?

You're right, its not single handedly - but for a team that cant hit and is only a couple games over .500 - he is 19-4. Haren has had a great year too. Must be quite a drop off after those two guys, haha. With his track records, name recognition, win numbers, ERA and strikeouts, its Webb's award to lose and i dont see that happening at this point. I love Edinson but he would have to be flawless from here on out to have a shot and the bullpen crap away another one of his W's over the weekend. I would put Lincecum in second but once again Webb is in the driver seat.

G Man

[Extra Innings]

Lee and Webb. I almost chose Lincecum, but thought that CC's dominance of the NL could push votes away from Tim. If CC finishes undefeated in the National League it will make things interesting. Webb has been outstanding and is finally getting some recognition in the league.

[dbacksfan95]

Lee and Webb. I almost chose Lincecum, but thought that CC's dominance of the NL could push votes away from Tim. If CC finishes undefeated in the National League it will make things interesting. Webb has been outstanding and is finally getting some recognition in the league.

I agree 100%

[philkid3]

I love Edinson but he would have to be flawless from here on out to have a shot and the bullpen crap away another one of his W's over the weekend.
I wasn't suggesting Volquez should win, I was suggesting he shouldn't be anywhere close to top three.

[yamsi12]

I wasn't suggesting Volquez should win, I was suggesting he shouldn't be anywhere close to top three.

I agree.

I dont see how Lincecum doesnt get it if he keeps on winning and putting up the numbers he has been.

[Zagi-CRO]

A new report on Aug/28:

AL Cy Award


CYP Name W L ERA
2.64 Cliff Lee 19 2 2.43
2.91 Roy Halladay 16 9 2.72
2.96 Dai Matsuzaka 15 2 2.98
3.13 Ervin Santana 13 5 3.41
3.29 A.J. Burnett 16 8 4.51
3.33 Mike Mussina 16 7 3.41
3.45 John Lackey 11 2 2.95
3.50 Scott Kazmir 9 6 3.27


Cliff Lee and... then.... Halladay, Dice-K...

[Zagi-CRO]

A new report on Aug/28:

NL Cy Award


CYP Name W L ERA
2.55 Tim Lincecum 14 3 2.43

2.78 Brandon Webb 19 5 2.96
2.81 Edinson Volquez 15 4 2.83
2.95 CC Sabathia 14 8 2.95
2.95 Ryan Dempster 15 5 2.95
3.03 Dan Haren 14 6 3.10
3.16 Johan Santana 12 7 2.70
3.17 Ch Billingsley 12 10 3.14


Lincecum... and then ... Webb, Volquez

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Big Timmy is 15-3, not 14-3.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Zagi,

This formula of yours is nonsensical. It seems you just adjusted multipliers to some random equation (using IP twice makes no sense) to come up with a nice little number.

I believe you need to come up with a new one. If you used the "three true outcomes" (HR, BB, K) combined with IP someway, that may be better.

But with this equation, there is very little consistency, and that basically has to do with the weights you're putting on there. Look at what happens when I just pick some people from history:

1997 Denny Neagle (20-5, 2.97 ERA, 233 1/3 IP, 172 K) - 2.89
1992 John Smoltz (15-12, 2.85 ERA, 246 2/3 IP, 215 K) - 3.01
1987 Nolan Ryan (8-16, 2.97 ERA, 211 2/3 IP, 270 K) - 3.06
2003 Russ Ortiz (21-7, 3.81 ERA, 212 1/3 IP, 149 K) - 3.11
1970 Clyde Wright (22-12, 2.83 ERA, 260 2/3 IP, 110 K) - 3.22
2001 John Burkett (12-10, 3.04 ERA, 219 1/3 IP, 187 K) - 3.24

EDIT: I submit an All-Star pitcher from the 1960s, Steve Barber:

1963 (20-13, 2.75 ERA, 258 2/3 IP, 180 K) - 2.98
1966 (10-5, 2.30 ERA, 133 1/3 IP, 91 K) - 3.40

And Bob Veale...

1964 (18-12, 2.74 ERA, 279 2/3 IP, 250 K) - 2.83
1968 (13-14, 2.05 ERA, 245 1/3 IP, 171 K) - 3.14

It's not significantly worse... but they seem to be penalized by your formula because walks are missing. Veale was a better pitcher in 1968. Barber was a slightly better pitcher in 1966. Walks would be able to give us more of the picture. You need to include them.

[Zagi-CRO]

Zagi,

This formula of yours is nonsensical. It seems you just adjusted multipliers to some random equation (using IP twice makes no sense) to come up with a nice little number.

I believe you need to come up with a new one. If you used the "three true outcomes" (HR, BB, K) combined with IP someway, that may be better.

But with this equation, there is very little consistency, and that basically has to do with the weights you're putting on there. Look at what happens when I just pick some people from history:

1997 Denny Neagle (20-5, 2.97 ERA, 233 1/3 IP, 172 K) - 2.89
1992 John Smoltz (15-12, 2.85 ERA, 246 2/3 IP, 215 K) - 3.01
1987 Nolan Ryan (8-16, 2.97 ERA, 211 2/3 IP, 270 K) - 3.06
2003 Russ Ortiz (21-7, 3.81 ERA, 212 1/3 IP, 149 K) - 3.11
1970 Clyde Wright (22-12, 2.83 ERA, 260 2/3 IP, 110 K) - 3.22
2001 John Burkett (12-10, 3.04 ERA, 219 1/3 IP, 187 K) - 3.24

EDIT: I submit an All-Star pitcher from the 1960s, Steve Barber:

1963 (20-13, 2.75 ERA, 258 2/3 IP, 180 K) - 2.98
1966 (10-5, 2.30 ERA, 133 1/3 IP, 91 K) - 3.40

And Bob Veale...

1964 (18-12, 2.74 ERA, 279 2/3 IP, 250 K) - 2.83
1968 (13-14, 2.05 ERA, 245 1/3 IP, 171 K) - 3.14

It's not significantly worse... but they seem to be penalized by your formula because walks are missing. Veale was a better pitcher in 1968. Barber was a slightly better pitcher in 1966. Walks would be able to give us more of the picture. You need to include them.


SBF, thank you so much for your comment!!! :)

hmmm... CYP= (60*ERA +2*L -12*W -IP -1.2*SO)/ IP +5

It's identical as:
CYP= 60*ERA/IP +2*L/IP -12*W/IP -1.20*SO/IP +4
but the upper formula looks better to me :)


Look, the formula is made only for the CY Young Award-prediction
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/awards/aw_cyy.shtml

As you can see, the voters appreciated only such numbers like - wins, ERA, SO and maybe IP, SV, losses.
See: Each league's award is voted on by two members of the Baseball Writers Association of America in each league city, meaning 28 ballots are cast for the American League winner, and 32 for the National League.

So, I agree with you about Cy - but for entire starter-evaluation I have another math:

SIE= (IP+ SO- 0.21*H - 0.7*BB - R - 3*HR- ERA*IP/9- )/IP*6 qualified-IP > 162
Try to calculate SIE /starter independent effort/ for those pitchers from history!?

[Zagi-CRO]

SBF, each of maths /CYP and SIE/ have their purpose.
Look at numbers for starters on Sep/01:


CYP SIE Name W L ERA SO IP H HR R BB
2.55 7.98 Tim Lincecum 14 3 2.43 206 181.1 145 9 54 66
2.58 6.59 Cliff Lee 20 2 2.32 149 194.1 177 8 53 27
2.80 3.70 Daike Matsuzaka 16 2 2.82 124 140.2 107 10 47 80
2.82 4.57 Edinson Volquez 16 4 3.07 159 161.1 141 9 64 75
2.84 5.89 CC Sabathia 15 8 2.82 208 210.1 186 17 71 52
2.87 4.03 Brandon Webb 19 6 3.19 160 192 174 12 79 51
2.88 5.21 Roy Halladay 17 9 2.72 176 208.2 185 17 72 34
2.95 4.65 Ryan Dempster 15 5 2.95 160 176.2 142 11 65 69
3.03 4.78 Ervin Santana 14 5 3.31 183 184.2 163 18 71 43
3.08 4.93 Dan Haren 14 7 3.24 176 186 173 17 72 30
3.08 4.97 Ch Billingsley 13 10 3.12 175 173.1 156 11 65 71
3.13 4.11 Johan Santana 12 7 2.71 169 196 174 22 67 51
3.25 1.81 A.J. Burnett 16 9 4.41 191 185.2 183 19 97 73
3.25 5.67 Jake Peavy 9 9 2.69 155 153.2 126 15 48 49
3.30 4.26 Ben Sheets 12 7 2.97 144 179 161 14 64 41
3.33 2.26 Mike Mussina 16 7 3.41 115 166.1 177 15 73 23
3.34 3.39 Cole Hamels 11 8 3.13 168 195.2 159 24 77 43
3.42 2.11 Ricky Nolasco 13 7 3.77 154 172 160 24 77 37
3.44 -0.47 Gavin Floyd 15 6 3.61 119 167 143 23 85 64
3.47 1.58 Arm Galarraga 12 4 3.05 106 150.1 130 18 60 49


If you ask me who will win the AL and NL CY Award I 'll look at CYP numbers and say:
AL -- Cliff Lee CYP=2.58, Matsuzaka 2.80, Halladay 2.88
NL -- Lincecum CYP=2.55, Volquez 2.82, C.C.S. 2.84, Webb 2.87

Is it ok?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, if you ask me who is better pitcher, then I'll use the SIE math and say:


AL --
SIE Name
6.59 Cliff Lee
5.21 Roy Halladay
4.78 Ervin Santana
4.08 Justin Duchscherer
3.70 Daisuke Matsuzaka
3.49 John Danks
3.23 Felix Hernandez

7.98 Tim Lincecum
5.89 CC Sabathia
5.67 Jake Peavy
4.97 Chad Billingsley
4.93 Dan Haren
4.65 Ryan Dempster
4.57 Edinson Volquez
4.26 Ben Sheets
4.11 Johan Santana
4.03 Brandon Webb
3.39 Cole Hamels
2.55 Matt Cain




Peavy has excellent numbers but for the CY Award failed because of Padres bad support.
Duchscherer, Danks, F.Hernandez, also...

Caution--- the lower CYP is the best CYP but the highest SIE is the best SIE!!

[Zagi-CRO]

Some examples- the CY Young Award 2007 yr

Starters standings according to CYP:


AL - Zagi's Standings
CYP W L ERA IP SO
Josh Beckett 2.69 20 7 3.27 200.2 194
Erik Bedard 2.78 13 5 3.16 182.0 221
C.C. Sabathia 2.87 19 7 3.21 241.0 209
John Lackey 2.91 19 9 3.01 224.0 179
Johan Santana 2.92 15 13 3.33 219.0 235
Scott Kazmir 2.95 13 9 3.48 206.2 239
Jus Verlander 2.99 18 6 3.66 201.2 183
Kelvim Escobar 3.03 18 7 3.40 195.2 160
Jake Peavy 2.36 19 6 2.36 217.0 234



2007 American League Cy Young Award
BR Bullpen: Find or enter more info for this award (what's this?)

1st Max | Season Results
Rk Name Team Place Points Points Share| W-L IP ERA WHIP SO SV
+--+----------------+----+-----+------+------+-----+------+---+-----+-----+---+--+
1 C.C. Sabathia CLE 19 119 140 0.85 | 19-7 241 3.21 1.14 209
2 Josh Beckett BOS 8 86 140 0.61 | 20-7 201 3.27 1.14 194
3 John Lackey LAA 1 36 140 0.26 | 19-9 224 3.01 1.21 179
4 Fausto Carmona CLE 0 7 140 0.05 | 19-8 215 3.06 1.21 137
5 Erik Bedard BAL 0 1 140 0.01 | 13-5 182 3.16 1.09 221
5 Roy Halladay TOR 0 1 140 0.01 | 16-7 225 3.71 1.24 139
5 Johan Santana MIN 0 1 140 0.01 | 15-13 219 3.33 1.07 235
5 Justin Verlander DET 0 1 140 0.01 | 18-6 202 3.66 1.23 183


------------------------- Analyze --------------------

CYP Votes
Josh Beckett 1 2
Erik Bedard 2 5
C.C. Sabathia 3 1
John Lackey 4 3
Johan Santana 5 5
Scott Kazmir 6 -
Jus Verlander 7 5


I'm not satisfy with diferences.. I'll try improve my math...

[Zagi-CRO]

A new math - improved!!

CYPn= (60*ERA +2*L -10*W - 0.80*IP - 1.25*SO)/ 162 + 6
IP > 162


2007 National League Cy Young Award
BR Bullpen: Find or enter more info for this award (what's this?)

1st Max | Season Results
Rk Name Team Place Points Points Share| W-L IP ERA WHIP SO SV
+--+----------------+----+-----+------+------+-----+------+---+-----+-----+---+--+
1 Jake Peavy SDP 32 160 160 1.00 | 19-6 223 2.54 1.06 240
2 Brandon Webb ARI 0 94 160 0.59 | 18-10 236 3.01 1.19 194
3 Brad Penny LAD 0 14 160 0.09 | 16-4 208 3.03 1.31 135
4 Aaron Harang CIN 0 10 160 0.06 | 16-6 232 3.73 1.14 218
5 Carlos Zambrano CHC 0 3 160 0.02 | 18-13 216 3.95 1.33 177
6 Cole Hamels PHI 0 2 160 0.01 | 15-5 183 3.39 1.12 177
6 John Smoltz ATL 0 2 160 0.01 | 14-8 206 3.11 1.18 197
6 Jose Valverde ARI 0 2 160 0.01 | 1-4 64 2.66 1.12 78 47
9 Jeff Francis COL 0 1 160 0.01 | 17-9 215 4.22 1.38 165



NL - Zagi's Standings
CYP W ERA SO L IP

1.Jake Peavy 2.66 19 2.36 234 6 217.0
2.Brandon Webb 3.24 18 3.01 194 10 236.1
3.Aaron Harang 3.45 16 3.73 218 6 231.2
4.John Smoltz 3.68 14 3.11 197 8 205.2
5.Carl Zambrano 3.86 18 3.95 177 13 216.1
6.Brad Penny 3.92 16 3.03 135 4 208.0
7.Cole Hamels 3.94 15 3.39 177 5 183.1
8.Roy Oswalt 4.00 14 3.19 154 7 211.2
9.Ted Lilly 4.04 15 3.83 174 8 207.0
10.Tim Hudson 4.05 16 3.33 132 10 224.1
11.Jeff Francis 4.08 17 4.22 165 9 215.1


------------------------- Analyze --------------------

CYP VOTE
Jake Peavy 1 1
Brandon Webb 2 2
Aaron Harang 3 4
John Smoltz 4 6
Carl Zambrano 5 5
Brad Penny 6 3
Cole Hamels 7 6


Looks quite good!

-*************************************************-----------

The AL CY - again with new math


AL - Zagi's Standings
CYP W ERA SO L IP
C.C. Sabathia 3.07 19 3.21 209 7 241.0
Josh Beckett 3.33 20 3.27 194 7 200.2
John Lackey 3.33 19 3.01 179 9 224.0
Johan Santana 3.39 15 3.33 235 13 219.0
Dan Haren 3.56 15 3.07 192 9 222.2
Scott Kazmir 3.57 13 3.48 239 9 206.2
Javier Vazquez 3.66 15 3.74 213 8 216.2
Erik Bedard 3.67 13 3.16 221 5 182.0
Jus Verlander 3.69 18 3.66 183 6 201.2
Fausto Carmona 3.71 19 3.06 137 8 215.0
Kelvim Escobar 3.81 18 3.40 160 7 195.2


------------------------- Analyze --------------------



CYP Votes
C.C. Sabathia 1 1
Josh Beckett 2 2
John Lackey 3 3
Johan Santana 4 5
Dan Haren 5 -
Scott Kazmir 6 -
Javier Vazquez 7 -
Erik Bedard 8 5
Jus Verlander 9 5
Fausto Carmona 10 4

It's better result with CYPn= (60*ERA +2*L -10*W - 0.80*IP - 1.25*SO)/ 162 + 6

[SamtheBravesFan]

What you need to do is you need to make it so that you don't need the + 6 at the end to compensate for your fraction being a negative number in your CYP formula. Adding losses and subtracting wins, even weighted, is just silly. Dividing by 162 games at the end is better, though, because you're not using IP twice. And I'm not doing the SIE formula. That's terrible. You're using ERA twice and IP three times in that as far as I can tell.

You can't just use whatever you want in formulas to come out with a nice, little number. It has to make sense. The problem with your CYP formula overall is that your weights are not grounded in statistics. They're completely arbitrary. Since the Cy Young Award is awarded to one of the best pitchers, then we can assume your formula is supposed to determine who the best pitcher is. My examples show that your CYP formula sells some people short.

And by the way, you're still not using walks and you still have Lincecum as being 14-3. He's 15-3. ;)

[philkid3]

You can't just use whatever you want in formulas to come out with a nice, little number. It has to make sense.

I'm quoting this as reinforcement.

[Dalkowski110]

I'm quoting this as reinforcement.

I'll quote you to reinforce the reinforcement ;) (but seriously, I agree).

[Zagi-CRO]

What you need to do is you need to make it so that you don't need the + 6 at the end to compensate for your fraction being a negative number in your CYP formula.

I made some improvement due to real starters numbers, again...
CYP= (80*ERA+ 3*L- 10*W- 0.80*IP- 1.25*SO)/ 162 +5
Yes, I need constanta still now but it could be avoided...I'll try...
But constanta isn't mistake, right now...
The most essential thing is PREDICTING the Cy Young Winner the best we can! If our CYP result is similar to the voters then we shall be satisfied.


Adding losses and subtracting wins, even weighted, is just silly.


No, I dont agree!! Just opposite!! Wins are the most significant numbers when voters making decision who could be the Cy Young Winner! I dont understand how then to calculate prediction /without wins ans losses/?? Voters dont care about starter's BB, H, HR etc... they care how many wins starter has, they care about his ERA and SO! I have repeated myself but obviously I need...
What numbers/stats/ could I have in CYP formula then??


And I'm not doing the SIE formula. That's terrible. You're using ERA twice and IP three times in that as far as I can tell.
You can't just use whatever you want in formulas to come out with a nice, little number. It has to make sense.


SIE= (IP+ SO- R- 0.21*H - 0.70*BB- 3.00*HR- ERA*IP/9 )/IP*6

I used ERA twice? Where? Fraction ERA*IP/9 is actually ER!!
Ok, I could put it in the math...
SIE= (IP+ SO- R- 0.21*H - 0.70*BB- 3.00*HR- ER )/IP*6

I dont see any mistake if I am using IP twice... like dividend and divisor... it's not the same.



The problem with your CYP formula overall is that your weights are not grounded in statistics. They're completely arbitrary. Since the Cy Young Award is awarded to one of the best pitchers, then we can assume your formula is supposed to determine who the best pitcher is. My examples show that your CYP formula sells some people short.
And by the way, you're still not using walks and you still have Lincecum as being 14-3. He's 15-3. ;)

I agree. The weights aren't grounded in statistics but the math works! I didn't use walks simple cos walks aren't so essential numbers for the Cy Young Award Winner! I told you that... :banghead: :)

Conclusion:
Chinese proverb
Hrvatski - Nije bitno koje je boje mačka, bitno je da lovi miševe! :) :)
Black cat or white cat: If it can catch mice, it's a good cat.


I thank you for remarks!! It's a right step in the right direction!!

[philkid3]

If our CYP result is similar to the voters then we shall be satisfied.


I strongly disagree. There is no reason we should automatically agree with the choices and opinions of the writers.

[Zagi-CRO]

Another analyze----- 1975 ---------------------------------------
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1975.shtml#NLcya


1975 American League Cy Young Award
1st Max | Season Results
Rk Name Team Place Points Points Share| W-L IP ERA WHIP SO SV
+--+----------------+----+-----+------+------+-----+------+---+-----+-----+---+--+
1 Jim Palmer BAL 15 98 120 0.82 | 23-11 323 2.09 1.03 193 1
2 Catfish Hunter NYY 7 74 120 0.62 | 23-14 328 2.58 1.01 177
3 Rollie Fingers OAK 2 25 120 0.21 | 10-6 127 2.98 1.01 115 24
4 Jim Kaat CHW 0 7 120 0.06 | 20-14 304 3.11 1.31 142
4 Frank Tanana CAL 0 7 120 0.06 | 16-9 257 2.62 1.10 269
6 Vida Blue OAK 0 2 120 0.02 | 22-11 278 3.01 1.23 189 1
6 Rich Gossage CHW 0 2 120 0.02 | 9-8 142 1.84 1.19 130 26
8 Rick Wise BOS 0 1 120 0.01 | 19-12 255 3.95 1.31 141


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1975 National League Cy Young Award

1st Max | Season Results
Rk Name Team Place Points Points Share| W-L IP ERA WHIP SO SV
+--+----------------+----+-----+------+------+-----+------+---+-----+-----+---+--+
1 Tom Seaver NYM 15 98 120 0.82 | 22-9 280 2.38 1.09 243
2 Randy Jones SDP 7 80 120 0.67 | 20-12 285 2.24 1.05 103
3 Al Hrabosky STL 2 33 120 0.28 | 13-3 97 1.66 1.08 82 22
4 John Montefusco SFG 0 2 120 0.02 | 15-9 244 2.88 1.21 215
5 Don Gullett CIN 0 1 120 0.01 | 15-4 160 2.42 1.15 98
5 Andy Messersmith LAD 0 1 120 0.01 | 19-14 322 2.29 1.06 213 1
5 Don Sutton LAD 0 1 120 0.01 | 16-13 254 2.87 1.04 175


------------------------------ Zagi's CYP Analize --------------------------------------------------


American League
Team Name CYP W L ERA IP SO
Orioles Jim Palmer 1.74 23 11 2.09 322.1 193
Angels Frank Tanana 2.13 16 9 2.62 257.1 269
Yankees Catfish Hunter 2.13 23 14 2.58 328 177
Athlet Vida Blue 2.50 22 11 3.01 277.2 189
Twins Bert Blyleven 2.58 15 10 3 275.2 233
White Jim Kaat 2.98 20 14 3.12 302.2 142
Royals Steve Busby 3.11 18 12 3.08 260.1 160
Orioles Mike Torrez 3.19 20 9 3.06 270.2 119

National League
Team Name CYP W L ERA IP SO
Mets Tom Seaver 1.73 22 9 2.38 280.1 243
Dodg An Messersmith 2.02 19 14 2.31 319 211
- - - Gaylord Perry 2.50 18 17 3.24 305.2 233
Giants John Montefusco 2.81 15 9 2.89 243 215
Padres Randy Jones 2.99 19 12 2.24 281 101
Dodgers Don Sutton 3.07 16 13 2.87 254 175
- - - Burt Hooton 3.16 18 8 2.91 232 152
Pirates Jerry Reuss 3.17 18 11 2.54 237.1 131


------------------------- Analyze --------------------

CYP VOTERS
Jim Palmer 1 1 EQUALLY!!
Frank Tanana 2 4
Catfish Hunter 3 2
Vida Blue 4 6
Bert Blyleven 5 -

Tom Seaver 1 1 EQUALLY!!
An Messersmith 2 5
Gaylord Perry 3 -
Jo Montefusco 4 4
Randy Jones 5 2




I say again -- Black cat or white cat: If it can catch mice, it's a good cat. :)

[Zagi-CRO]

I strongly disagree. There is no reason we should automatically agree with the choices and opinions of the writers.

Yes and no...
Ok, I agree the writers could be wrong and they were sometime.
But the final decision is in their hands /votes/!!

[Zagi-CRO]

And by the way, you're still not using walks and you still have Lincecum as being 14-3. He's 15-3. ;)


Today, I used Lincecum's numbers from http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=n&type=0&season=2008&month=0 ???

It' wrong numbers...hey... :eek: I made correction...

Sep/02


Name CYP W L ERA IP SO
Cliff Lee 2.84 20 2 2.32 194.1 149
Roy Halladay 3.07 17 9 2.72 208.2 176
Ervin Santana 3.54 14 5 3.31 184.2 183
Dai Matsuzaka 3.79 16 2 2.82 140.2 124
Mike Mussina 3.96 17 7 3.39 172.1 123
A.J. Burnett 3.97 16 9 4.41 185.2 191

Name CYP W L ERA IP SO
Tim Lincecum 2.81 15 3 2.60 190.1 216
CC Sabathia 2.97 15 8 2.82 210.1 208
Brandon Webb 3.33 19 6 3.19 192 160
Johan Santana 3.46 12 7 2.71 196 169
Ryan Dempster 3.52 15 5 2.95 176.2 160
Cole Hamels 3.55 12 8 3.01 203 174


Hence, Cliff Lee and Tim Lincecum are the Cy Young-frontrunners.

If you have any remarks ... let me know!!

[Dalkowski110]

I strongly disagree. There is no reason we should automatically agree with the choices and opinions of the writers.

Agreed. Why we should we settle for the reasoning of some sportswriter with some nearly semi-accurate system (Zagi, you went all the way back to 1975 to find one correct example? Are you serious?) when there are far better formulae available to us?

As for SIE, you just seem to be overcomplicating things in a random formula that seems to be cobbled together. Why not just state "ER" in the first place rather than "ERA*IP/9?" Could it be that you wanted your equation to sound more sophisticated than it actually is? And let's see how it works. Just taking two totally arbitrary seasons of a pitcher from history that I figure you'll know about...Nolan Ryan...

1972: 5.90 SIE
1987: 5.85 SIE

Okay Zagi...why is Ryan's 1987 season seen by almost every metric (and almost every person) I've seen as his best and why does your stat not reflect this (as it should)? Well, actually, don't answer. I can answer this...because you don't adjust for context and frankly, you need to. Find another formula that adjusts for context. Or, as you might say, find a cat that catches mice...because this one sure doesn't.

[Zagi-CRO]

Agreed. Why we should we settle for the reasoning of some sportswriter with some nearly semi-accurate system (Zagi, you went all the way back to 1975 to find one correct example? Are you serious?) when there are far better formulae available to us?

I'm always serious but your post isn't serious. Which formula you have to show us, pls?
I didn't go in the past because it's ONLY one correct example. Which argument you have to prove that? I think it's silly comment, no offense.


As for SIE, you just seem to be overcomplicating things in a random formula that seems to be cobbled together. Why not just state "ER" in the first place rather than "ERA*IP/9?" Could it be that you wanted your equation to sound more sophisticated than it actually is? And let's see how it works. Just taking two totally arbitrary seasons of a pitcher from history that I figure you'll know about...Nolan Ryan...

1972: 5.90 SIE
1987: 5.85 SIE

Okay Zagi...why is Ryan's 1987 season seen by almost every metric (and almost every person) I've seen as his best and why does your stat not reflect this (as it should)? Well, actually, don't answer. I can answer this...because you don't adjust for context and frankly, you need to. Find another formula that adjusts for context. Or, as you might say, find a cat that catches mice...because this one sure doesn't.

Hey buddy, what are you want to say??? I didn't see YOUR OWN result, you are always talking about 'some formula'... which formula???
Please, name that formula! :dance Where is YOUR OWN cat??? :) Or you are only a mouse??

[Zagi-CRO]

As for SIE, you just seem to be overcomplicating things in a random formula that seems to be cobbled together. Why not just state "ER" in the first place rather than "ERA*IP/9?" Could it be that you wanted your equation to sound more sophisticated than it actually is? And let's see how it works. Just taking two totally arbitrary seasons of a pitcher from history that I figure you'll know about...Nolan Ryan...

1972: 5.90 SIE
1987: 5.85 SIE

Okay Zagi...why is Ryan's 1987 season seen by almost every metric (and almost every person) I've seen as his best and why does your stat not reflect this (as it should)? Well, actually, don't answer. I can answer this...because you don't adjust for context and frankly, you need to. Find another formula that adjusts for context. Or, as you might say, find a cat that catches mice...because this one sure doesn't.

Come on.... you are making your opinion based on TWO (2) years DVIJE godine!! ... my God!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
... you and Nolan Ryan... :) :)


For ER and ERA*IP/9 ... no comment!! :cap: It's not serious comment, for me. You are joking, buddy... overcomplicating things :confused:

[Zagi-CRO]

Dalkowski, let's see Nolan Ryan :)

SIE= (IP+ SO- R- 0.21*H - 0.70*BB- 3.00*HR- ER )/IP*6


1987 y
SIE Name Team
5.85 Nolan Ryan Astros
3.78 Roger Clemens Red Sox
3.33 Mike Scott Astros
3.05 Dwight Gooden Mets
2.46 Orel Hershiser Dodgers
2.32 Bob Welch Dodgers
2.26 Frank Viola Twins
1.99 Jimmy Key Blue Jays


Conclusion:
Nolan Ryan has the best numbers that year /1987./
His SIE is 5.85 versus 2nd Clemens's 3.78...


Now, about Cy Young Awar :cap:


1987 National League Cy Young Award

1st Max | Season Results
Rk Name Team Place Points Points Share| W-L IP ERA WHIP SO SV
+--+----------------+----+-----+------+------+-----+------+---+-----+-----+---+--+
1 Steve Bedrosian PHI 9 57 120 0.48 | 5-3 89 2.83 1.20 74 40
2 Rick Sutcliffe CHC 4 55 120 0.46 | 18-10 237 3.68 1.39 174
3 Rick Reuschel TOT 8 54 120 0.45 |+13-9 227 3.09 1.10 107
4 Orel Hershiser LAD 2 14 120 0.12 | 16-16 265 3.06 1.21 190 1
5 Dwight Gooden NYM 1 12 120 0.10 | 15-7 180 3.21 1.20 148
5 Nolan Ryan HOU 0 12 120 0.10 | 8-16 212 2.76 1.14 270
7 Mike Scott HOU 0 9 120 0.08 | 16-13 248 3.23 1.12 233
8 Bob Welch LAD 0 3 120 0.02 | 15-9 252 3.22 1.15 196

--------------------------------------------------------------------------




-------------------- Zagi's CYP ----------------------------------------


CYP Name W L ERA IP SO
2.83 Mike Scott 16 13 3.23 247.2 233
3.03 Orel Hershiser 16 15 3.02 262.1 189
3.04 Nolan Ryan 8 16 2.76 211.2 270
3.08 Bob Welch 15 9 3.22 251.2 196
3.38 Rick Sutcliffe 18 10 3.68 237.1 174
3.65 Fern Valenzuela 14 14 3.98 251 190
3.76 Dwight Gooden 15 7 3.21 179.2 148
3.86 Rick Reuschel 13 8 2.92 225 106


Bedrosian was a relief pitcher...
Why is Rick Sutcliffe second on the voting-list?? In front of Mike Scott? I dont know! :hp
IMO, Scott has a much better numbers then Rick Sutcliffe. Compare it..


W L ERA IP SO
Mike Scott 16 13 3.23 247.2 233
Rick Sutcliffe 18 10 3.68 237.1 174


Mike Scott had:
- better an ERA
- more strikeouts
- more innings pitched
And Sutcliffe had only an edge - 18 vs. 16 wins... but wins aren't only his impact.

Why Sutcliffe got 55 points and Mike Scott only 9 points... only Heaven and God know!? :banghead:
Do you agree with me, Dalkowski? I think CYP is more objective then writers.

It's all I can say about 1987 and Nolan Ryan. :candle:

[Dalkowski110]

"Please, name that formula!"

I'll do you one better and name multiple statistics...and before you criticize me for not explaining every single silly intricacy, please know that these are well-grounded stats that are generally accepted as workable...
-ERA+
-ERA vs. League Average
-WHIP vs. League Average
-K/9 vs. League Average
-Pitching Runs vs. League Average
-VORP

You don't NEED that complex a formula. You're overcomplicating it for yourself. The most complex (if you can even call it that) formula I used was VORP. That's Value Over Replacement Player. From Tangotiger.net...

"A pitcher's VORP subtracts his RA from the RA of a replacement level pitcher, divides by nine and multiplies by innings pitched."

Also, from the same site...

"For pitchers, replacement level was originally the league Run Average plus one. In Baseball Prospectus 2002 the formula was updated to use different replacement levels for starters and relievers:

Starters: Replacement level = 1.37 * League RA - 0.66 Relievers: Replacement level = 1.70 * League RA - 2.27"

All you need to do is find out how the pitcher does in the important categories vs. the league average and adjust for context. Without context, ANY metric is worthless.

"You are joking, buddy... overcomplicating things"

As a matter of fact, I'm not joking. You'd make it easier on anyone attempting to use your fomula if you just stated earned runs rather than calculating them. Just go to www.baseball-reference.com and you can find them for any pitcher.

"you are making your opinion based on TWO (2) years"

Actually, I ran a bunch of individual years where a pitcher posted an abnormally low ERA and more K's (though a slightly lower K/9) and the lesser of the two years always wins. Your fomula is fundamentally flawed.

[Zagi-CRO]

"Please, name that formula!"

I'll do you one better and name multiple statistics...and before you criticize me for not explaining every single silly intricacy, please know that these are well-grounded stats that are generally accepted as workable...
-ERA+
-ERA vs. League Average
-WHIP vs. League Average
-K/9 vs. League Average
-Pitching Runs vs. League Average
-VORP

You don't NEED that complex a formula. You're overcomplicating it for yourself. The most complex (if you can even call it that) formula I used was VORP. That's Value Over Replacement Player. From Tangotiger.net...

"A pitcher's VORP subtracts his RA from the RA of a replacement level pitcher, divides by nine and multiplies by innings pitched."

Also, from the same site...

"For pitchers, replacement level was originally the league Run Average plus one. In Baseball Prospectus 2002 the formula was updated to use different replacement levels for starters and relievers:

Starters: Replacement level = 1.37 * League RA - 0.66 Relievers: Replacement level = 1.70 * League RA - 2.27"

All you need to do is find out how the pitcher does in the important categories vs. the league average and adjust for context. Without context, ANY metric is worthless.

"you are making your opinion based on TWO (2) years"

Actually, I ran a bunch of individual years where a pitcher posted an abnormally low ERA and more K's (though a slightly lower K/9) and the lesser of the two years always wins. Your fomula is fundamentally flawed.

Ok, thank you so much! I am pleased you are so quick-answering. Good!
I am writing, now... for 1987...:)

[Zagi-CRO]

"you are making your opinion based on TWO (2) years"

Actually, I ran a bunch of individual years where a pitcher posted an abnormally low ERA and more K's (though a slightly lower K/9) and the lesser of the two years always wins. Your fomula is fundamentally flawed.

If I understand you well...you want to say Nolar Ryan's 1987 y's was his best?
If it's so... I agree with you... see #86

[Zagi-CRO]

You don't NEED that complex a formula. You're overcomplicating it for yourself. The most complex (if you can even call it that) formula I used was VORP. That's Value Over Replacement Player. From Tangotiger.net...

"A pitcher's VORP subtracts his RA from the RA of a replacement level pitcher, divides by nine and multiplies by innings pitched."



Ok... let's compare VORP and SIE. Ok?
Let it be any year ... 1999y, ok?

Where I could find 1999-VORP for starters? Pls... have you any link?

It's my SIE:


Name SIE
Pedro Martinez 9.48
Randy Johnson 6.45
Kevin Millwood 3.59
Kevin Brown 3.51
John Smoltz 3.25
Mike Hampton 2.59
Mike Mussina 2.37
Shane Reynolds 1.92
David Cone 1.61
Curt Schilling 1.60
Jose Lima 1.28
Greg Maddux 1.01

[Dalkowski110]

Tom Tango's The Book.

[Dalkowski110]

BTW...

Here's a sampling of pitcher's VORP from 2001...

http://www.stathead.com/bbeng/woolner/vorpp2001.htm

[Zagi-CRO]

BTW...

Here's a sampling of pitcher's VORP from 2001...

http://www.stathead.com/bbeng/woolner/vorpp2001.htm

And for 1999. :)

[Dalkowski110]

It's not free. I gave you the equation from Tangotiger.net, but to have the full list, you have to have this...

http://www.baseball-encyclopedia.com/

You can calculate your own from stats found on www.baseball-reference.com, though.

[Zagi-CRO]

It's not free. I gave you the equation from Tangotiger.net, but to have the full list, you have to have The Book by Tom Tango. I would recommend this for any baseball library, but I loaned out my copy and it was never returned. I'll buy another one (I'm only too happy to support Tom Tango), but I'm not in a position to give you any readily available list. You have to calculate your own VORP.

ok, I will take 2001 y ...for comparing..only qualified starters!!!


Name SIE
Randy Johnson 7.71
Curt Schilling 4.45
Kerry Wood 4.03
Mike Mussina 3.77
Matt Morris 3.24
John Burkett 3.01
Greg Maddux 2.98
Javier Vazquez 2.96
Roger Clemens 2.80
Barry Zito 2.68
Chan Ho Park 2.63
Freddy Garcia 2.37
Darryl Kile 2.26
Russ Ortiz 2.07
Mark Mulder 1.92
Tim Hudson 1.86
Brad Penny 1.81
Al Leiter 1.78
Kevin Appier 1.70
Andy Pettitte 1.63
Wade Miller 1.11
Hideo Nomo 1.00
Mark Buehrle 0.87
Tony Armas Jr. 0.85
Bartolo Colon 0.78
Jon Lieber 0.70
Jamie Moyer 0.63
Joe Mays 0.63
Brad Radke 0.52
C.C. Sabathia 0.51
Jason Bere 0.39
Cory Lidle 0.30





PITCHER TEA L G GS W-L SV-HD-BS IP H_9 W_9 K_9 ERA RA PK_RA RA+ RP VORP
--------------- --- - --- --- ----- -------- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------ ---- ------ ------
RaJohnson/ARI ARI N 35 34 21-6 0-0-0 249.7 6.5 2.6 13.4 2.49 2.67 2.65 179 58.2 86.0
CSchilling/ARI ARI N 35 35 22-6 0-0-0 256.7 8.3 1.4 10.3 2.98 3.02 3.00 158 50.0 78.5
JMays/MIN MIN A 34 34 17-13 0-0-0 233.7 7.9 2.5 4.7 3.16 3.35 3.21 153 44.1 70.0
DKile/SLN SLN N 34 34 16-11 0-0-0 227.3 9.0 2.6 7.1 3.09 3.29 3.21 148 39.1 64.3
FGarcia/SEA SEA A 34 34 18-6 0-0-0 238.7 7.5 2.6 6.1 3.05 3.32 3.61 136 34.4 60.9
GMaddux/ATL ATL N 34 34 17-11 0-0-0 233.0 8.5 1.0 6.7 3.05 3.32 3.42 139 34.4 60.3
MMussina/NYA NYA A 34 34 17-11 0-0-0 228.7 8.0 1.7 8.4 3.15 3.42 3.55 138 34.4 59.8
MBuehrle/CHA CHA A 32 32 16-8 0-0-0 221.3 7.6 2.0 5.1 3.29 3.62 3.58 137 32.5 57.1
JBurkett/ATL ATL N 34 34 12-12 0-0-0 219.3 7.7 2.9 7.7 3.04 3.41 3.51 135 30.3 54.6
MMorris/SLN SLN N 34 34 22-8 0-0-0 216.3 9.1 2.2 7.7 3.16 3.58 3.49 136 30.3 54.4
MMulder/OAK OAK A 34 34 21-8 0-0-0 229.3 8.4 2.0 6.0 3.45 3.61 3.84 128 27.1 52.6
WMiller/HOU HOU N 32 32 16-8 0-0-0 212.0 7.8 3.2 7.8 3.40 3.86 3.53 135 28.9 52.4
JVazquez/MON MON N 32 32 16-11 0-0-0 223.7 7.9 1.8 8.4 3.42 3.70 3.78 126 24.2 49.1
BRadke/MIN MIN A 33 33 15-11 0-0-0 226.0 9.4 1.0 5.5 3.94 4.18 4.00 123 22.7 47.8
THudson/OAK OAK A 35 35 18-9 0-0-0 235.0 8.3 2.7 6.9 3.37 3.83 4.07 120 21.7 47.8
RClemens/NYA NYA A 33 33 20-3 0-0-0 220.3 8.4 2.9 8.7 3.51 3.84 3.98 123 22.6 47.1
ROswalt/HOU HOU N 28 20 14-3 0-0-0 141.7 8.0 1.5 9.1 2.73 3.05 2.78 171 31.0 46.7
JMoyer/SEA SEA A 33 33 20-6 0-0-0 209.7 8.0 1.9 5.1 3.43 3.61 3.92 125 22.9 46.2
TGlavine/ATL ATL N 35 35 16-7 0-0-0 219.3 8.7 4.0 4.8 3.57 3.78 3.89 122 21.0 45.4
CPark/LAN LAN N 36 35 15-11 0-0-0 234.0 7.0 3.5 8.4 3.50 3.77 4.03 118 18.8 44.8
PMartinez/BOS BOS A 18 18 7-3 0-0-0 116.7 6.5 1.9 12.6 2.39 2.55 2.50 196 31.2 44.2
BColon/CLE CLE A 34 34 14-12 0-0-0 222.3 8.9 3.6 8.1 4.09 4.29 4.17 118 18.2 42.9
BZito/OAK OAK A 35 35 17-8 0-0-0 214.3 7.7 3.4 8.6 3.49 3.86 4.11 119 18.9 42.7
JLieber/CHN CHN N 34 34 20-6 0-0-0 232.3 8.8 1.6 5.7 3.80 4.03 4.11 116 16.6 42.4
RuOrtiz/SFN SFN N 33 33 17-9 0-0-0 218.7 7.7 3.7 7.0 3.29 3.70 4.03 118 17.7 42.0
EMilton/MIN MIN A 35 34 15-7 0-0-0 220.7 9.1 2.5 6.4 4.32 4.45 4.25 115 15.9 40.4
KWood/CHN CHN N 28 28 12-6 0-0-0 174.3 6.6 4.7 11.2 3.36 3.61 3.69 129 20.6 40.0
ASele/SEA SEA A 34 33 15-5 0-0-0 215.0 9.0 2.1 4.8 3.60 3.89 4.23 116 16.1 39.9
KAppier/NYN NYN N 33 33 11-10 0-0-0 206.7 7.9 2.8 7.5 3.57 3.88 4.04 118 16.4 39.4
JWashburn/ANA ANA A 30 30 11-10 0-0-0 193.3 9.1 2.5 5.9 3.77 4.14 4.18 117 15.4 36.9
SSparks/DET DET A 35 33 14-9 0-0-0 232.0 9.5 2.5 4.5 3.69 4.27 4.52 109 10.0 35.8
ALeiter/NYN NYN N 29 29 11-11 0-0-0 187.3 8.6 2.2 6.8 3.31 3.89 4.05 117 14.6 35.4
ODotel/HOU HOU N 61 4 7-5 2-13-2 105.0 6.8 4.0 12.4 2.66 3.00 2.74 173 23.5 35.2
RPerson/PHI PHI N 33 33 15-7 0-0-0 208.3 7.7 3.5 7.9 4.19 4.45 4.24 112 11.9 35.1
BPenny/FLO FLO N 31 31 10-10 0-0-0 205.0 8.0 2.4 6.8 3.69 4.04 4.25 112 11.4 34.2
FRodriguez/SFN SFN N 80 0 9-1 0-33-2 80.3 5.9 3.0 10.2 1.68 1.79 1.95 244 25.0 34.0
CLidle/OAK OAK A 29 29 13-6 0-0-0 188.0 8.1 2.3 5.6 3.59 4.02 4.28 115 13.1 34.0
RWolf/PHI PHI N 28 25 10-11 0-0-0 163.0 8.3 2.8 8.4 3.70 4.09 3.89 122 15.6 33.7
MBatista/ARI ARI N 48 18 11-8 0-4-0 139.3 7.3 3.9 5.8 3.36 3.68 3.66 130 16.9 32.3
KFoulke/CHA CHA A 72 0 4-9 42-0-3 81.0 6.3 2.4 8.3 2.33 2.33 2.31 212 23.3 32.3
SKline/SLN SLN N 89 0 3-3 9-22-1 75.0 6.4 3.5 6.5 1.80 1.92 1.87 254 24.0 32.3
KEscobar/TOR TOR A 59 11 6-8 0-14-0 126.0 6.6 3.7 8.6 3.57 3.64 3.61 136 18.2 32.2
RReed/NYN NYN N 20 20 8-6 0-0-0 134.7 8.0 1.1 6.6 3.48 3.54 3.69 129 15.9 30.9
BKim/ARI ARI N 78 0 5-6 19-12-4 98.0 5.1 4.0 10.4 2.94 2.94 2.92 163 19.9 30.8
CCarpenter/TOR TOR A 34 34 11-11 0-0-0 215.7 9.6 3.1 6.6 4.09 4.67 4.63 106 6.6 30.6
EDessens/CIN CIN N 34 34 10-14 0-0-0 205.0 9.7 2.5 5.6 4.48 4.52 4.41 108 7.8 30.6
KBrown/LAN LAN N 20 19 10-4 0-0-0 115.7 7.3 3.0 8.1 2.65 3.19 3.41 139 17.2 30.1

PITCHER TEA L G GS W-L SV-HD-BS IP H_9 W_9 K_9 ERA RA PK_RA RA+ RP VORP
--------------- --- - --- --- ----- -------- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------ ---- ------ ------
SReynolds/HOU HOU N 28 28 14-11 0-0-0 182.7 10.2 1.8 5.0 4.34 4.68 4.27 111 9.7 30.0
ARhodes/SEA SEA A 72 0 8-0 3-31-4 68.0 6.1 1.6 11.0 1.72 1.85 2.01 243 21.8 29.4
SChacon/COL COL N 27 27 6-10 0-0-0 160.0 8.8 4.9 7.5 5.06 5.40 4.11 116 11.5 29.3
TSturtze/TBA TBA A 39 27 11-12 1-3-2 195.3 9.2 3.6 5.1 4.42 4.52 4.56 108 7.4 29.1
JZimmerman/TEX TEX A 66 0 4-4 28-5-3 71.3 6.1 2.0 9.1 2.40 2.40 2.26 217 20.9 28.9
SLowe/CHA CHA A 45 11 9-4 3-3-0 127.0 8.7 2.3 5.0 3.61 3.90 3.86 127 14.7 28.9
RHalladay/TOR TOR A 17 16 5-3 0-0-0 105.3 8.3 2.1 8.2 3.16 3.50 3.47 141 16.8 28.5
TWakefield/BOS BOS A 45 17 9-12 3-4-2 168.7 8.3 3.9 7.9 3.90 4.48 4.39 112 9.5 28.3
MRivera/NYA NYA A 71 0 4-6 50-0-7 80.7 6.7 1.3 9.3 2.34 2.68 2.77 177 19.1 28.0
CSabathia/CLE CLE A 33 33 17-5 0-0-0 180.3 7.4 4.7 8.5 4.39 4.64 4.51 109 8.0 28.0
DNeagle/COL COL N 30 30 9-8 0-0-0 170.7 10.1 3.2 7.3 5.38 5.64 4.29 111 8.8 27.7
JWeaver/DET DET A 33 33 13-16 0-0-0 229.3 9.2 2.7 6.0 4.08 4.55 4.82 102 2.2 27.7
HNomo/BOS BOS A 33 33 13-10 0-0-0 198.0 7.8 4.4 10.0 4.50 4.77 4.68 105 4.9 26.9
BWickman/CLE CLE A 70 0 5-0 32-4-3 67.7 8.1 1.9 8.8 2.39 2.39 2.32 211 19.4 26.9
MStanton/NYA NYA A 76 0 9-4 0-22-1 80.3 9.0 3.2 8.7 2.58 2.80 2.90 169 17.9 26.8
JSuppan/KCA KCA A 34 34 10-14 0-0-0 218.3 9.4 3.1 4.9 4.37 4.95 4.80 102 2.5 26.7
CFox/MIL MIL N 65 0 5-2 2-19-2 66.7 5.9 4.9 10.8 1.89 2.16 2.16 220 19.2 26.6
WWilliams/SLN SLN N 11 11 7-1 0-0-0 75.0 6.5 2.3 6.2 2.28 2.64 2.58 185 18.1 26.5
KFarnsworth/CHN CHN N 76 0 4-6 2-25-1 82.0 7.1 3.2 11.7 2.74 2.85 2.91 163 16.8 25.9
PQuantrill/TOR TOR A 80 0 11-2 2-22-7 83.0 9.3 1.3 6.3 3.04 3.14 3.11 158 16.5 25.7
MMatthews/SLN SLN N 51 10 3-4 1-5-1 89.0 7.5 3.3 7.3 3.24 3.24 3.16 151 15.8 25.7
TVanPoppel/CHN CHN N 59 0 4-1 0-6-0 75.0 7.6 4.6 10.8 2.52 2.64 2.69 176 17.2 25.5
APettitte/NYA NYA A 31 31 15-10 0-0-0 200.7 10.0 1.8 7.4 3.99 4.62 4.79 102 2.6 24.9
JThomson/COL COL N 14 14 4-5 0-0-0 93.7 8.1 2.4 6.5 4.04 4.42 3.36 141 14.5 24.9
DDavis/TEX TEX A 30 30 11-10 0-0-0 186.0 10.6 3.3 5.6 4.45 4.98 4.70 104 4.2 24.8
MHampton/COL COL N 32 32 14-13 0-0-0 203.0 10.5 3.8 5.4 5.41 6.12 4.65 102 2.3 24.8
RArrojo/BOS BOS A 41 9 5-4 5-3-2 103.3 7.6 3.0 6.8 3.48 3.83 3.76 131 13.2 24.6
IValdes/ANA ANA A 27 27 9-13 0-0-0 163.7 9.7 2.7 5.5 4.45 4.51 4.55 108 6.3 24.5
ABurnett/FLO FLO N 27 27 11-12 0-0-0 173.3 7.5 4.3 6.6 4.05 4.26 4.48 106 5.2 24.5
ALevine/ANA ANA A 64 1 8-10 2-17-4 75.7 8.4 3.3 4.8 2.50 2.97 3.00 163 16.0 24.4
VNunez/FLO FLO N 52 3 4-5 0-4-1 92.0 7.7 2.9 6.3 2.74 3.23 3.40 140 13.9 24.1
ODaal/PHI PHI N 32 32 13-7 0-0-0 185.7 9.6 2.7 5.2 4.46 4.85 4.62 103 2.8 23.4
JPineiro/SEA SEA A 17 11 6-2 0-1-0 75.3 6.0 2.5 6.7 2.03 2.87 3.12 157 15.0 23.3
SSullivan/CIN CIN N 79 0 7-1 0-21-3 103.3 8.2 3.1 7.1 3.31 3.83 3.74 127 11.6 23.1
MDeJean/MIL MIL N 75 0 4-2 2-8-2 84.3 8.0 4.2 7.3 2.77 3.31 3.31 144 13.5 22.9
DWeathers/MIL MIL N 52 0 3-4 4-10-3 57.7 5.8 3.9 7.2 2.03 2.18 2.18 218 16.5 22.9
RaOrtiz/ANA ANA A 32 32 13-11 0-0-0 208.7 9.6 3.3 5.8 4.31 4.87 4.92 100 -0.4 22.7
BWagner/HOU HOU N 64 0 2-5 39-0-2 62.7 6.3 2.9 11.3 2.73 2.73 2.49 191 15.7 22.7
TArmasJr/MON MON N 34 34 9-14 0-0-0 196.7 8.3 4.2 8.1 4.12 4.62 4.72 101 0.8 22.7
SKarsay/CLE CLE A 31 0 0-1 1-9-0 43.3 6.0 1.7 9.1 1.25 1.25 1.21 405 17.8 22.6
GCarrara/LAN LAN N 47 3 6-1 0-9-3 85.3 7.7 2.5 7.4 3.16 3.16 3.38 140 13.0 22.5
MRemlinger/ATL ATL N 75 0 3-3 1-31-4 75.0 8.0 2.8 11.2 2.76 3.00 3.09 154 13.8 22.2
DLowe/BOS BOS A 67 3 5-10 24-4-6 91.7 10.0 2.8 8.1 3.53 3.83 3.75 131 11.7 21.9
MHerges/LAN LAN N 75 0 9-8 1-15-7 99.3 8.8 4.2 6.9 3.44 3.53 3.78 126 10.7 21.8
JGrimsley/KCA KCA A 73 0 1-5 0-26-7 80.3 8.0 3.1 6.8 3.02 3.59 3.48 141 12.7 21.6
JIsringhausen/O OAK A 65 0 4-3 34-1-9 71.3 6.8 2.9 9.3 2.65 3.03 3.22 152 13.3 21.3
PAbbott/SEA SEA A 28 27 17-4 0-0-0 163.0 8.0 4.8 6.5 4.25 4.36 4.74 103 2.9 21.1

What's VORP:
For starting pitchers, Repl. Level = 1.37 * League RA - 0.66
For relief pitchers, Repl. Level = 1.70 * League RA - 2.27
Therefore, the current formula for VORP is:

VORP = ((Repl. Level - RAvg)/9)*Innings Pitched



R.Johnson has the best VORP - the best SIE
C.Schilling has 2nd VORP - 2nd SIE
.... and then ???
Wood, Mays, Kile... there is a significant difference!
etc...

[Dalkowski110]

BTW, quickly...my mistake. I thought you were asking me where to get background info on VORP. You'll find that in The Book. But you need the Complete Baseball Encyclopedia for year-by-year stats (and I get those from a friend who has a copy...I don't).

EDIT: ".... and then ???
Wood, Mays, Kile... there is a significant difference!
etc..."

Yes, that means YOUR formula is wrong. Aside from Johnson and Schilling, your formula is night and day compared to VORP. Joe Mays (especially) and Darryl Kile are penalized by your system due to a low K/9. Kerry Wood only had a so-so year...he just had an astronomical K/9, skewing your results.

[Zagi-CRO]

BTW, quickly...my mistake. I thought you were asking me where to get background info on VORP. You'll find that in The Book. But you need the Complete Baseball Encyclopedia for year-by-year stats (and I get those from a friend who has a copy...I don't).

EDIT: ".... and then ???
Wood, Mays, Kile... there is a significant difference!
etc..."

Yes, that means YOUR formula is wrong. Aside from Johnson and Schilling, your formula is night and day compared to VORP. Joe Mays (especially) and Darryl Kile are penalized by your system due to a low K/9. Kerry Wood only had a so-so year...he just had an astronomical K/9, skewing your results.

Ok, we are trying to compare 'night and day'... :)
It's not the same...
SIE has IP, SO, R, H, BB, HR, ER /seven parameters/
VORP has IP... and what else?

No, I think you have wrong conclusion. SIE isn't VORP!!! And the SIE results CAN'T be the same as VORP!!

VORP = ((Repl. Level - RAvg)/9)*Innings Pitched
Is it VORP = (1.37 * League RA - 0.66 - RAvg/9)*Innings Pitched ?

RAvg? What's that?

[redlegsfan21]

SBF, thank you so much for your comment!!! :)

hmmm... CYP= (60*ERA +2*L -12*W -IP -1.2*SO)/ IP +5

It's identical as:
CYP= 60*ERA/IP +2*L/IP -12*W/IP -1.20*SO/IP +4
but the upper formula looks better to me :)

Wouldn't it be better if you reverse the signs (+/-) on your formula such as this:

CYP=(1.2*K+IP+12*W-2*L-60*ERA)/IP

[SamtheBravesFan]

R.Johnson has the best VORP - the best SIE
C.Schilling has 2nd VORP - 2nd SIE
.... and then ???
Wood, Mays, Kile... there is a significant difference!
etc...

Exactly. This means that your formula has inconsistencies that VORP doesn't because your formula has no mathematical relation to statistics. It's just cobbling numbers together to make a new number.

[Zagi-CRO]

:coffeeWouldn't it be better if you reverse the signs (+/-) on your formula such as this:

CYP=(1.2*K+IP+12*W-2*L-60*ERA)/IP


Yes...a good suggestion.
I tried only CYP-value could look like an ERA numbers, ok?
But it works with reverse signs, as well ...:)

CYPn= (10*W -3*L+ 0.80*IP+ 1.25*SO -80*ERA)/ 162
It's improved CYPn...

How it works on 2008 stats:


Name CYPn CYP
Tim Lincecum 2.19 2.81
Cliff Lee 2.16 2.84
CC Sabathia 2.03 2.97
Roy Halladay 1.93 3.07
Brandon Webb 1.67 3.33
Johan Santana 1.54 3.46
Ryan Dempster 1.48 3.52
Ervin Santana 1.46 3.54
Cole Hamels 1.45 3.55
Edinson Volquez 1.42 3.58
Dan Haren 1.41 3.59
Ch Billingsley 1.28 3.72
Dais Matsuzaka 1.21 3.79
Ben Sheets 1.14 3.86
Mike Mussina 1.04 3.96
A.J. Burnett 1.03 3.97
Jake Peavy 1.01 3.99
Jon Lester 0.94 4.06
Ricky Nolasco 0.85 4.15
Felix Hernandez 0.81 4.19
James Shields 0.78 4.22
Gavin Floyd 0.78 4.23
Zack Greinke 0.73 4.27
Arm Galarraga 0.72 4.28
Carlos Zambrano 0.70 4.30
Ted Lilly 0.66 4.34

Standings is the same, of course. Ok, I agree, I'll take CYPn.

[Dalkowski110]

"SIE has IP, SO, R, H, BB, HR, ER /seven parameters/
VORP has IP... and what else?"

Well, RA (which is better than ERA) and the always-common number nine. I don't think you fully grasp VORP. But no matter. You don't seem to understand my point...your logic seems to be "the more complex the stat, the better." That's nonsense. That's why I'm using VORP in conjunction with other stats. Zagi...THERE IS NO ONE ALL-ENCOMPASSING STAT. To say so or believe so is absolute silliness. You have to use multiple stats to find the answer. There's a reason why Pete Palmer, Voros McCracken, Tom Tango, etc., etc. use multiple stats and multiple formulae and not ONE stat and ONE formula. Your formula is a one-dimensional, K/9-biased, innings-biased hodge-podge. It has some uses, but they are minimal and you must look at the bigger picture, something you are completely failing at.

[Zagi-CRO]

Exactly. This means that your formula has inconsistencies that VORP doesn't because your formula has no mathematical relation to statistics. It's just cobbling numbers together to make a new number.

:) yes.. but I am 'cobbling' a real numbers.. such as ERA, IP, hits...
A new number is a mirror of these player's stats, isn't it?

[Dalkowski110]

"A new number is a mirror of these player's stats, isn't it?"

Not when it's merely randomly jumbling numbers together to get something that at first glance looks like it makes sense...which is exactly what you've done...

[SamtheBravesFan]

"A new number is a mirror of these player's stats, isn't it?"

Not when it's merely randomly jumbling numbers together to get something that at first glance looks like it makes sense...which is exactly what you've done...

He's right, Zagi. The sooner you accept this, the better. You seem to be knowledgeable at math. If you are, you'd realize that established sabrmetric formulas are much better than yours because they have grounds in established mathematical theories.

[Zagi-CRO]

"SIE has IP, SO, R, H, BB, HR, ER /seven parameters/
VORP has IP... and what else?"

Well, RA (which is better than ERA) and the always-common number nine. I don't think you fully grasp VORP. But no matter. You don't seem to understand my point...your logic seems to be "the more complex the stat, the better." That's nonsense. That's why I'm using VORP in conjunction with other stats. Zagi...THERE IS NO ONE ALL-ENCOMPASSING STAT. To say so or believe so is absolute silliness. You have to use multiple stats to find the answer. There's a reason why Pete Palmer, Voros McCracken, Tom Tango, etc., etc. use multiple stats and multiple formulae and not ONE stat and ONE formula. Your formula is a one-dimensional, K/9-biased, innings-biased hodge-podge. It has some uses, but they are minimal and you must look at the bigger picture, something you are completely failing at.


Ok, you are right. I really believe in 'the more complex the stat, the better'
I am trying to find better and better formula, ok?
I dont say 'SIE is the best'.. no, anyway.

[Zagi-CRO]

"A new number is a mirror of these player's stats, isn't it?"

Not when it's merely randomly jumbling numbers together to get something that at first glance looks like it makes sense...which is exactly what you've done...

I want to get starters standings... from the best to the worst!
At first glance, yes, you are right.

[Dalkowski110]

"I really believe in 'the more complex the stat, the better'"

I'm bolding that for emphasis. Let me tell you right now that that is totally, completely, and absolutely wrong. The beauty of statistics are their simplicity, not their complexity. That's why things like VORP and Linear Weights for pitchers are things of beauty. They do so much with so little. Remember the old saying..."It is never quantity that wins the day, but rather quality." You're going for quantity.

"I am trying to find better and better formula, ok?"

So, if we're to use the above as logic, you're just going for more and more complex.

[Zagi-CRO]

"SIE has IP, SO, R, H, BB, HR, ER /seven parameters/
VORP has IP... and what else?"

Well, RA (which is better than ERA) and the always-common number nine. I don't think you fully grasp VORP. But no matter. You don't seem to understand my point...your logic seems to be "the more complex the stat, the better." That's nonsense. That's why I'm using VORP in conjunction with other stats. Zagi...THERE IS NO ONE ALL-ENCOMPASSING STAT. To say so or believe so is absolute silliness. You have to use multiple stats to find the answer. There's a reason why Pete Palmer, Voros McCracken, Tom Tango, etc., etc. use multiple stats and multiple formulae and not ONE stat and ONE formula. Your formula is a one-dimensional, K/9-biased, innings-biased hodge-podge. It has some uses, but they are minimal and you must look at the bigger picture, something you are completely failing at.

I am afraid I dont understand something...
Dalkowski, please could you be so kind and calculate VORP for Johnson 2001 y. ?

Johnson(VORP)= ??
RaJohnson/ARI ARI N 35 34 21-6 0-0-0 249.7 6.5 2.6 13.4 2.49 2.67 2.65 179 58.2 86.0

VORP = (1.37 * League RA - 0.66 - RAvg/9)*Innings Pitched
J-VORP=(1.37*League RA -0.66 - 2.67/9)*249.7

Ok, VORP-value depends on RA and IP which is exclusively pitcher's numbers?

[Dalkowski110]

I already posted the formula a while back...

"A pitcher's VORP subtracts his RA from the RA of a replacement level pitcher, divides by nine and multiplies by innings pitched."

Also, from the same site...

"For pitchers, replacement level was originally the league Run Average plus one. In Baseball Prospectus 2002 the formula was updated to use different replacement levels for starters and relievers:

Starters: Replacement level = 1.37 * League RA - 0.66 Relievers: Replacement level = 1.70 * League RA - 2.27"

To calculate Run Average, well, just R*(R/IP). To find the league RA, calculate it for every pitcher in the league.

[Zagi-CRO]

"I really believe in 'the more complex the stat, the better'"

I'm bolding that for emphasis. Let me tell you right now that that is totally, completely, and absolutely wrong. The beauty of statistics are their simplicity, not their complexity. That's why things like VORP and Linear Weights for pitchers are things of beauty. They do so much with so little. Remember the old saying..."It is never quantity that wins the day, but rather quality." You're going for quantity.

"I am trying to find better and better formula, ok?"

So, if we're to use the above as logic, you're just going for more and more complex.

I understand what you want to say... I see it like this:

With VORP /or any other stat/ you have 'one view' on things... with an ERA your view is changed... with SO you have a different view... etc.
Only with all-together you could have a 'complex viewing'...?

[Zagi-CRO]

He's right, Zagi. The sooner you accept this, the better. You seem to be knowledgeable at math. If you are, you'd realize that established sabrmetric formulas are much better than yours because they have grounds in established mathematical theories.

SBF, I understand this. But have I the right to do something different?
I think, I have the right..:cap:
/I finished years and years ago :eek: technical college, I like the numbers, really :dance/

[SamtheBravesFan]

SBF, I understand this. But have I the right to do something different?
I think, I have the right..:cap:

You can do something different, but that doesn't make it valuable just because you do it.

[Zagi-CRO]

You can do something different, but that doesn't make it good just because you do it.

haha... I didnt say that... but it's different...

Ok, I am joking.
But for the CYP-math I think it could work.

It's evening... see you tomorrow!

[Trickyhop]

Lincecum or Haren, and Cliff Lee for the AL. It's too bad that Felix Hernandez plays for the M's, cause his record would be so much better, therefore maybe puting him up on these polls (not to win mind you, but for the recognition). He's got such great stuff.

[Dalkowski110]

Agreed, Sam. I had a friend in high school that thought a lot like Zagi. In math class, we had to make presentations about applying certain formulae to real life situations. Being the baseball fan that I am (this was in late 2004), I made presentations about how points in the book Moneyball could be applied to the New York Mets, who should be batting where, what Minor Leaguers should have been brought up...that kind of thing.

My friend applied his formula, which he had presented, to poker and predicting it. If you've ever played cards, you'd know that there are a great many complex formulae to try and predict the outcomes. Well, my friend invented his own. But he made it complex for complexity's sake. He just wanted a higher grade, so at one point you multiplied by 52 and at one point divided by 52 (and it contained another redundancy that I don't remember). While his system wasn't totally useless, there were a lot of existing systems that were better.

It was so obvious that his system was complex for the sake of getting a higher grade and probably making him look more intelligent that our math teacher actually stopped him in the middle of his presentation. She explained to him that it was simplicity...the ability to do more with fewer numbers...that was truly impressive and that he was needlessly complicating it. The situation and in fact the system SIE that you have invented...it's no different. You're needlessly over-complicating a pitcher-ranking system that is at best mediocre and is at worst fundamentally flawed. Yes, you're using all the stats in a jumble, but how do you know which ones to place emphasis on? Which ones to emphasize? Which ones are sabermetrically worth more than the others? I would take five statistics to accurately find a better player than one statistic to not-that-accurately find one any day of the week. Zagi...you're just getting caught up in the complexity.

[KevinWI]

This whole discussion reminds me of a story on NPR's This American Life a few months ago about a mechanic who had read a few physics books and determined by himself that Einstein's E=MC2 was impossible and incorrect. He started a website, and started telling people about it, and started writing his own book. The radio show set him up with a junior physics professor at a local community college, and the professor basically told him in five minutes that all of his figuring was wrong because he had missed a few basic principals.

[Zagi-CRO]

This whole discussion reminds me of a story on NPR's This American Life a few months ago about a mechanic who had read a few physics books and determined by himself that Einstein's E=MC2 was impossible and incorrect. He started a website, and started telling people about it, and started writing his own book. The radio show set him up with a junior physics professor at a local community college, and the professor basically told him in five minutes that all of his figuring was wrong because he had missed a few basic principals.

:) Baseball isn't Einstein's Theory of Relativity :)
or
When Simple Isn't Quite So Simple

About your mechanic... ."Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back." :)

[Zagi-CRO]

Agreed, Sam. I had a friend in high school that thought a lot like Zagi. In math class, we had to make presentations about applying certain formulae to real life situations. Being the baseball fan that I am (this was in late 2004), I made presentations about how points in the book Moneyball could be applied to the New York Mets, who should be batting where, what Minor Leaguers should have been brought up...that kind of thing.

My friend applied his formula, which he had presented, to poker and predicting it. If you've ever played cards, you'd know that there are a great many complex formulae to try and predict the outcomes. Well, my friend invented his own. But he made it complex for complexity's sake. He just wanted a higher grade, so at one point you multiplied by 52 and at one point divided by 52 (and it contained another redundancy that I don't remember). While his system wasn't totally useless, there were a lot of existing systems that were better.

It was so obvious that his system was complex for the sake of getting a higher grade and probably making him look more intelligent that our math teacher actually stopped him in the middle of his presentation. She explained to him that it was simplicity...the ability to do more with fewer numbers...that was truly impressive and that he was needlessly complicating it. The situation and in fact the system SIE that you have invented...it's no different. You're needlessly over-complicating a pitcher-ranking system that is at best mediocre and is at worst fundamentally flawed. Yes, you're using all the stats in a jumble, but how do you know which ones to place emphasis on? Which ones to emphasize? Which ones are sabermetrically worth more than the others? I would take five statistics to accurately find a better player than one statistic to not-that-accurately find one any day of the week. Zagi...you're just getting caught up in the complexity.


Obviously, Dalkowski, you are afraid of the complexity!?
Why?
'Less is more'... ok ... it's your moto... but baseball isn't a chair :)

What's your opinion about this stat:

FIP
Fielding Independent Pitching, a measure of all those things for which a pitcher is specifically responsible. The formula is (HR*13+(BB+HBP-IBB)*3-K*2)/IP, plus a league-specific factor (usually around 3.2) to round out the number to an equivalent ERA number. FIP helps you understand how well a pitcher pitched, regardless of how well his fielders fielded.

Hm... isn't so simple? Not at all.
Could I say this formula is just awful, terrible from the mathematical or statistic point of view? Yes, but it works.
FIP wasn't invented by Zagi! :dance

or this:

FPct
Fielding Percentage, or the number of fielding chances handled without an error. The formula is (A+PO)/(A+PO+E).

A and PO ... twice!!!! FPct wasn't invented by Zagi, again! :dance

Let's go further...

GPA
Gross Production Average, a variation of OPS, but more accurate and easier to interpret. The exact formula is (OBP*1.8+SLG)/4, adjusted for ballpark factor. The scale of GPA is similar to BA: .200 is lousy, .265 is around average and .300 is a star. A simple formula for converting GPA to runs is PA*1.356*(GPA^1.77).

Hey... they said 'A simple formula for converting' :eek: :noidea

It's not simple, at all..... :)

LOB and LOB%
LOB stands for Left On Base. It is the number of runners that are left on base at the end of an inning. LOB% is slightly different; it is the percentage of baserunners allowed that didn't score a run. LOB% is used to track pitcher's luck or effectiveness (depending on your point of view). The exact formula is (H+BB+HBP-R)/(H+BB+HBP-(1.4*HR)). You can read more about LOB% in this article.

lol....brrrrrr ..... (H+BB+HBP-R)/(H+BB+HBP-(1.4*HR)) I have nothing to say... H, BB, HBP... twice... brrrrr :banghead: :banghead:
LOB wasn't invented by Zagi, again! :dance

Do You Want More?? :noidea

So, My Idea: Baseball isn't E=mc^2

/P.S. It's very interesting thread, indeed/

[philkid3]

FIP
Fielding Independent Pitching, a measure of all those things for which a pitcher is specifically responsible. The formula is (HR*13+(BB+HBP-IBB)*3-K*2)/IP, plus a league-specific factor (usually around 3.2) to round out the number to an equivalent ERA number. FIP helps you understand how well a pitcher pitched, regardless of how well his fielders fielded.

Hm... isn't so simple? Not at all.
Could I say this formula is just awful, terrible from the mathematical or statistic point of view? Yes, but it works.
FIP wasn't invented by Zagi! :dance
It's as simple as it can be to arrive at its intended conclusion. It's not overly complicated just to be complicated. You're 100% missing their points, Zagi. The FIP formula isn't an arbitrary series of weights arriving at an arbitrary number, it's trying to isolate runs charged to a pitcher accounting for fielding.

So, yes, for what it is, FIP is simple. It doesn't contain things like ERA*(IP/9) instead of simply using ER.


or this:

FPct
Fielding Percentage, or the number of fielding chances handled without an error. The formula is (A+PO)/(A+PO+E).

A and PO ... twice!!!! FPct wasn't invented by Zagi, again! :dance
It HAS to use A+PO twice. How would you suggest you do otherwise?

(X+Y)/(X+Y+Z) is not equal to 1/Z. Those A+PO's don't cancel out, they must be in the denominator and the numerator because you are calculating different numbers.

Again, you're not bothering to understand their points. And, frankly, it's extremely frustrating to read.


Let's go further...

GPA
Gross Production Average, a variation of OPS, but more accurate and easier to interpret. The exact formula is (OBP*1.8+SLG)/4, adjusted for ballpark factor. The scale of GPA is similar to BA: .200 is lousy, .265 is around average and .300 is a star. A simple formula for converting GPA to runs is PA*1.356*(GPA^1.77).

Hey... they said 'A simple formula for converting' :eek: :noidea

It's not simple, at all..... :)
It's not overly complicated for the sake of it. It's simplified to the most basic degree possible.


Do You Want More?? :noidea
No, please don't. Please do not post anymore until you have made sure you understand what other people are saying first. It's rather obnoxious what you're doing.

[philkid3]

Another thing is you're trying to invent the wheel when it's already been invented long ago, instead of looking at other people's designs on the wheel and making sure you understand their designs then, if possible, improving their designs.

Many people have spent countless hours of many years analyzing and studying baseball and arriving at statistical representations of productivity and value. To start all over again and ignore all their work is folly.

[philkid3]

Long story short, dude, a good formula is not necessarily simple relative to other formulas, it is simple relative to what it can be. It doesn't pile on the math for the sake of it.

You're at point A, which is the raw information. You want to get to point B, which is the finished product of your statistical assessment; your metric. What you want is the shortest point between point A and point B.

Secondly, a good stat is not arbitrary. It is based, as much as possible, in scientific findings.

Taking an arbitrary number of points applied to OBP and an arbitrary number of points and applying them to SLG is not how Runs Created are found, and if that was how, it would be a worthless stat.

[Dalkowski110]

Philkid...

You said...

"It's as simple as it can be to arrive at its intended conclusion. It's not overly complicated just to be complicated. You're 100% missing their points, Zagi."

I bolded Zagi's quote for emphasis yesterday because it made zero sense. I bolded this one for emphasis because it makes so much perfect sense. So philkid, give yourself a pat on the back...you just explained in three sentences what probably would have taken me three posts!

[Zagi-CRO]

This whole discussion reminds me of a story on NPR's This American Life a few months ago about a mechanic who had read a few physics books and determined by himself that Einstein's E=MC2 was impossible and incorrect. He started a website, and started telling people about it, and started writing his own book. The radio show set him up with a junior physics professor at a local community college, and the professor basically told him in five minutes that all of his figuring was wrong because he had missed a few basic principals.


See: Einstein and his deadly error about E = mc2
http://www.rene-delavy.com/english/Einstein-and-his-deadly-error-about-E-mc2/

It's a very-known Anti-Einstein-Theory by René Delavy...:candle:

[Zagi-CRO]

Another thing is you're trying to invent the wheel when it's already been invented long ago, instead of looking at other people's designs on the wheel and making sure you understand their designs then, if possible, improving their designs.

Many people have spent countless hours of many years analyzing and studying baseball and arriving at statistical representations of productivity and value. To start all over again and ignore all their work is folly.

Holy Cow... It's as simple as it can be ...

(HR*13+(BB+HBP-IBB)*3-K*2)/IP, plus a league-specific factor (usually around 3.2)
(A+PO)/(A+PO+E)
PA*1.356*(GPA^1.77)
(OBP*1.8+SLG)/4
(H+BB+HBP-R)/(H+BB+HBP-(1.4*HR))

Hey folks... it's SIMPLE... Are you serious??
Whats SIMPLE? THIS IS SIMPLE .. ERA= 9* ER/IP
Ok, enough....over with you.

[Dalkowski110]

"See: Einstein and his deadly error about E = mc2"

As someone who took physics in HIGH SCHOOL (although my father minored in it in college), that inunto itself is enough to make me stop taking ANYTHING you have to say seriously...

[Zagi-CRO]

(X+Y)/(X+Y+Z) is not equal to 1/Z.

Really ... :eek: Come on kid... dont say it again to me ...
This isn't a serious-level disscusion.

stvarno si tupav...

(X+Y)/(X+Y+Z) =

X/(X+Y+Z) + Y/(X+Y+Z)

[Zagi-CRO]

"See: Einstein and his deadly error about E = mc2"

As someone who took physics in HIGH SCHOOL (although my father minored in it in college), that inunto itself is enough to make me stop taking ANYTHING you have to say seriously...

Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake... why?
Because of Copernicus opinion that the earth did go round, and the heavens did stand still...
Are you still believe that the Earth didn't go round?

[philkid3]

Whats SIMPLE? THIS IS SIMPLE .. ERA= 9* ER/IP

You know what's simpler and tells you the exact same thing?

Earned Runs


Ok, enough....over with you.
Wow, is it too much to ask for some maturity from you?

[philkid3]

Really ... :eek: Come on kid... dont say it again to me ...
This isn't a serious-level disscusion.

stvarno si tupav...

(X+Y)/(X+Y+Z) =

X/(X+Y+Z) + Y/(X+Y+Z)

Yup. And therefor A/(PO+A+E) + PO/(PO+A+E) = (A+PO)/(PO+A+E)

You haven't yet told me how you arrive at fielding percentage without having assists and putouts in both the denominator and numerator. And it is a serious discussion, but you're the only one deciding to be antagonistic.

[Zagi-CRO]

You know what's simpler and tells you the exact same thing?
Earned Runs
Wow, is it too much to ask for some maturity from you?

No offense, kid. It0s just talk. And dont repeat the same thing.... ER and ER.
I know ER= ERA * IP/9

[philkid3]

No offense, kid. It0s just talk. And dont repeat the same thing.... ER and ER.
I know ER= ERA * IP/9

So then why bother with ERA*IP/9?

I'll keep repeating things as often as seems necessary.

[Zagi-CRO]

Yup. And therefor A/(PO+A+E) + PO/(PO+A+E) = (A+PO)/(PO+A+E)

You haven't yet told me how you arrive at fielding percentage without having assists and putouts in both the denominator and numerator. And it is a serious discussion, but you're the only one deciding to be antagonistic.

it's not a crime to be antagonistic... is it?

[philkid3]

Another thing is you're trying to invent the wheel when it's already been invented long ago, instead of looking at other people's designs on the wheel and making sure you understand their designs then, if possible, improving their designs.

Many people have spent countless hours of many years analyzing and studying baseball and arriving at statistical representations of productivity and value. To start all over again and ignore all their work is folly.

Also, I'm bumping this again because I feel it's important and you glossed over it.

I'm very interested in statistical research, but I don't start by inventing my own stat and passing it off as viable. I start by reading the very intelligent works of those who have gone well before and beyond me. And, for now, what they present also fits my needs.


As an asside, a couple times people have asked for VORP numbers in this thread. As a BP subscriber, if you want a specific year for a specific player, I can pull that up quickly.

[philkid3]

it's not a crime to be antagonistic... is it?

It's certainly uncalled for and annoying.

[Dalkowski110]

"Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake... why?
Because of Copernicus opinion that the earth did go round, and the heavens did stand still...
Are you still believe that the Earth didn't go round?"

We're talking about Einstein's Theory of Relativity (and how it applies to mass-energy equivalence), not medieval astronomers being persecuted, you fool (and I would automatically classify anyone who draws a parallel there as being not only incredibly antagonistic and annoying, but also extremely dense). You think the moon landings were staged, too? :banghead::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Zagi-CRO]

So then why bother with ERA*IP/9?

I'll keep repeating things as often as seems necessary.

It is a bad argument. And what is the point of all disscusion??

U nedostatku činjenica se hvataš kao utopljenik za slamku.
I dont know how to translate this... :noidea

[Zagi-CRO]

"Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake... why?
Because of Copernicus opinion that the earth did go round, and the heavens did stand still...
Are you still believe that the Earth didn't go round?"

We're talking about Einstein's Theory of Relativity, you fool. You think the moon landings were staged, too? :banghead::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Dont tell me fool!!
it's not fair, anyway... ja bih tebi mogao isto reći svašta

[philkid3]

It is a bad argument.

What's a bad argument?

[Zagi-CRO]

We're talking about Einstein's Theory of Relativity, not medieval astronomers being persecuted (and I would automatically classify anyone who draws a parallel there as being not only incredibly antagonistic and annoying, but also extremely dense). You think the moon landings were staged, too? :banghead::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

No, no, no... we're talking about this:
2008 Cy Young Thread-NEW and IMPROVED!

[Zagi-CRO]

What's a bad argument?

Let's go on theme

[Dalkowski110]

"Dont tell me fool!!"

I'll tell it three more times, as a matter of fact...fool, fool, fool. You're just some guy pining away for attention and trying to make yourself look intelligent when on this thread, you've proven beyond all doubt that you are most certainly NOT. As such, I won't give you the luxury of attention.

"No, no, no... we're talking about this:
2008 Cy Young Thread-NEW and IMPROVED!"

So why give some hackneyed theory from some quack attention in the first place? All I did was respond to what you had to say.

[philkid3]

Let's go on theme

You've lost me.

[Zagi-CRO]

"Dont tell me fool!!"

I'll tell it three more times, as a matter of fact...fool, fool, fool. You're just some guy pining away for attention and trying to make yourself look intelligent when on this thread, you've proven beyond all doubt that you are most certainly NOT. As such, I won't give you the luxury of attention.

"No, no, no... we're talking about this:
2008 Cy Young Thread-NEW and IMPROVED!"

So why give some hackneyed theory from some quack attention in the first place?

I'll tell it three more times, as a matter of fact...fool, fool, fool
O, come on man... :hp I'll not tell you fool fool fool... :cap:
It's just a baseball-thread... calm yourself...

[Zagi-CRO]

You're just some guy pining away for attention and trying to make yourself look intelligent when on this thread, ...

I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing. :dance