Replies

"The case for Clemens is the weakest, IMO. The only stat where he had a significant edge on the other two is ERA."

The only stat where he had a significant edge is the one that actually measures how well he did his job.

Roger Clemens was a better pitcher this year than Chris Carpenter, even if you discount Carpenter's last four starts. The job of a pitcher is to prevent the other team from scoring, and Clemens averaged about 1 run per 9 innings less than Carpenter - that is a huge difference.

Carpenter did pitch more innings, and that is a significant factor in his favor. But Clemens' performance far outweighed that:

Carpenter 241.2 IP, 76 ER
Clemens 211.1 IP, 44 ER
Difference 30.1 IP, 32 ER

Carpenter (minus last 4 starts) 220 IP, 53 ER
Difference 8.2 IP, 9 ER

The idea that Clemens' ERA would likely have ballooned to the range of Carpenter's with a 30 more innings pitched is silly.

Clemens missed a couple of starts with an injury. I recognize that we can't just extend Clemens' record to compare full season to full season, because there was value in actually pitching the extra innings. But it is fair to ask "would a replacement-level player have been able to make up the difference." The answer is clearly yes - it's not hard to find someone in AAA or on the waiver wire who can throw 30.1 innings and give up 32 earned runs or less. If the difference was less than 20 ER, then I'd probably lean toward Carpenter - at that level the Astros would have had to fine someone to pitch 30 innings with with a 5.94 ERA, not too difficult, but still hit or miss from a minor league call-up.

But we know what this is really about - how much credit should the pitcher get for having a good W-L record. The answer is "they should get as much credit as their IP and ERA will allow." W-L record is a very imprecise measure of how well a pitcher pitched. Since more precise measures are available, we should use them. Why should we punish Clemens for playing for the new Hitless Wonders? Does Carpenter become a better pitcher as a result of Pujols hitting a 3-run HR? Some people just see 20 wins and can't see too much beyond that.

One thing I haven't mentioned is park factors - pitching in Coors Field is much different from pitching in Dodger Stadium. The main reasons I haven't mentioned it are:
1. I haven't seen the 2005 data
2. From 2002 - 2004, Busch Stadium and Minute Maid Park are dead even.

I didn't check Pro Player stadium (is that still where the Marlins play?), but that may have affected Willis' standing.

I agree with you on your MVP assessment - Pujols should win it, although Derrek Lee has better offensive numbers. Those numbers were compiled while playing half his games at Wrigley (still a help for offense) while Pujols played in a pitchers' park. I wouldn't be overconfident of him actually winning, though. Jones' HR total is on the right side of 50, led the league in RBI, plus he plays a gold-glove caliber CF, and that might be enough to tip the vote.

Don't get me wrong--a good case CAN be made for Clemens. What I object to is people saying that a good case CANNOT be made for Carpenter.

Traditionally, what people look for in a Cy Young winner is a "dream season," combining all of these factors: a lot of wins, a great W-L %, an excellent ERA, a lot of innings, plus the indicators of dominance--strikeouts, WHIP, etc. Carpenter had all of these.

It's true that RC is hurt by the 13-8, but those are the breaks. After all, this is not the "Addie Joss Award."