As Rob Neyer wrote:

“Last season, 19 American League pitchers finished with at least 200 innings. Beckett was 10th [in terms of quality of batters faced], right in the middle, facing a composite .757 OPS over the course of the season. Meanwhile, Sabathia had the easiest time in the group, as he faced a composite .738 OPS…”

Obviously that should be the ONLY thing we look at when comparing the two pitchers, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that Beckett had an easier schedule than Sabathia.

The overall point I was trying to make, if somewhat clumsily, was that in Joe’s analogy a 7 is NOT the most important card. It is the PAIR of 7’s that constitutes the winning hand, in which case you are no longer talking about individual cards but teams of cards. Therefore it is not the best analogy to use when talking about individual awards in baseball.

You may have been trying to make a broader point about individual value, but in that case you used a terrbile analogy, because batting average is just about the most misleading individual statistic you could have selected.

As for Joe’s opening analogy — what’s more valuable, a lone ace or a one-half of a pair of 7’s? — I agree with Bill James. Joe thinks the 7 is more valuable b/c it constitutes the winning hand, but that’s not true. It’s only PART of the winning hand. Think of it this way — what’s more valuable: a .350 hitter (the ace of spades) or a .320 hitter (the 7 of clubs)? Obviously it’s the .350 hitter. Now, asks Mr. Posnanski, what’s more important: a .350 hitter whose teammate hits .250 (an ace and a three) or two .320 hitters (two 7’s)? Obviously the more valuable property is the PAIR of .320 hitters (just like it’s more valuable to have two 7’s than an ace and a three). But the most valuable individual player is, just as obviously, the .350 hitter. I don’t see how Joe could possibly say otherwise.

“Before the post-season, Sabathia was the best, but after the post-season, Beckett was better. So voting for Beckett was based soley on his post-season performance.”

I don’t think you can say voting would be based solely on his post-season performance. You can say they were based partly on post-season performance. While the four post-season starts by each player might have altered the outcome of the vote, it could have just as easily been four regular season starts responsible for the statistical difference. Would you have then said the vote was based solely on those 4 (well, starts?

I think it’s reasonable for a baseball writer who has to vote on these things to be afforded the opportunity to consider the additional starts made in the post-season to come to a conclusion — if only so they can avoid (in their own eyes) embarrassment.

Not that I think the writers have anything to be embarrassed about on this particular vote. But you can understand how an earnest individual who sincerely wants the award to go to the right player might feel about a situation like this.

That’s a pretty funny AP headline, at least.

I think it’s good that they vote before the play-offs, because undue value is given to performances during the post-season. Just look at Lew Burdette: ‘57 Series, 0.67 ERA, 27 IP, 3 Wins. One of the best post-seasons ever. ‘58 Series: 1 Win, 2 Losses, 5.64 ERA. Not as good. And Warren Spahn was still the ace of that staff. And I think the writers got it right this time, being more impressed by Sabbathia’s inning’s over Beckett’s wins, which I think in this case are a better indicator of the better season, for it’s the season we vote on, not the pitcher (unless it’s Roger Clemens).

It’s just tricky when you get into high levels of analysis, just look at saber-metrics, or the Eckstein/Pujols analogy. Pujols has the superior overall performance, but his teammates are out of sync with him, and Eckstein is provided with the opportunity to make the difference, which he does. Now, Eckstein came through, which is a fact (in the land of imagination). The likelihood that Pujols would have is an academic consideration, which is useful in evaluating who is the better player, but relate to the real world (and if you were to project that over 162 games, and Pujols would bat 1.00 without driving in or scoring a run, we could really argue over the merits of “clutchness”). I think that sifting through the stats and taking them with a grain of salt is good, as in the ‘06 Cy Young, Colon really didn’t pitch as well as some other starters, but he did get the wins (which is his job), while Rivera was astounding, but didn’t even lead the league in saves, which is out of his hands. But you can get far to carried away with “interpreting” the numbers, and trying to isolate a single players true contributions, and then you have to devalue RBI’s because it’s not his fault if no-one is on base, and you have to devalue runs, because it’s not his fault if no-one drives him in, and you have to devalue wins because he had a lousy bullpen……and it can just go on and on until because you can’t realistically take teammates out of the equation. Even if baseball isn’t a team sport like football (and I would like to try and argue that it is, it’s just the defense holds the ball, not the offense, I’m not saying I could win the argument, but I like arguing these kind of things) it is still a team sport, and I think many of the attempts at isolating players are silly, because you don’t play the game by yourself, you are always at the mercy of your teammates, and to pretend otherwise is to look at baseball in the abstract, and I prefer to look at it on the field.

Great post. But I’m confused on one point. If during the season Sabathia was the best pitcher (as many people think), but then you add in the post-season (where Beckett ended up with better overall numbers), doesn’t that mean writers are just basing thier vote on the post-season, and the entire season.

There’s always a complaint about the post-season (especially with the wild card) that the best team doesn’t always win. Its the team that gets hot and plays the best. Isn’t this the same thing?

Before the post-season, Sabathia was the best, but after the post-season, Beckett was better. So voting for Beckett was based soley on his post-season performance.

No one was happier than I was in ‘85 when the Royals finally won the Series, but to call them the best team was insane. Before the post-season, they were chumps who were lucky to make it, after the post-season they were World Champions.

Now, I know someone will say that you can’t compare the Cy Young to a team season, but I think the example fits.

Remember, this are seasonal awards (as you stated so well) and not post-season awards.

Just for the record, I think Beckett was the Cy Young. But that’s just me.

For LaVelle Neal, maybe.

For George King, who’d just included Rick Helling AND David Wells on his MVP ballot in 1998– THE PREVIOUS YEAR– not so much.

King was the only one of the 28 voters to include Helling on his ballot. The following year, he was one of just two voters not to include Pedro Martinez.

Far from representing The Wisdom of Crowds, the ‘99 vote was the triumph of The Idiocy of the Lone Gunman.