Friday Links

— My latest Huffington Post column is now up. I discuss why Wins shouldn’t be used to evaluate pitchers.

So, kudos to Law and Carroll for using the right criteria for making their Cy Young picks. It’s fine to disagree with their choices, but the reasoning behind their decisions is much more sound than the reasoning used the chorus of sportswriters who are condemning them.

Rob Neyer disagrees with most of my Hot Stove Myths.

Here is a list of links that expand on my original post.

The number of free agents at a position affects the price of free agents at a position

GMs can buy low and sell high

Every trade has a winner and a loser

Players peak at 27 and old players are worthless (Follow-ups here and here)

2 Responses “Friday Links”

  1. Rick says:

    Carroll voted for Wainwright and I don’t agree with the criteria he used. Reading his article, it sounds like he used the opinions of the players and scout he talked to that said Lincecum “looked more hittable”, even though he wasn’t. He seems to think that Wainwright is a better pitcher because he changes things up from inning to inning while Lincecum uses more deception in his delivery. Deception is one of the things that helps to set one pitcher apart from another.
    Stuff aside, deception is a pitcher’s biggest asset. If a pitcher can’t deceive a hitter with regards to what pitch is coming, he will be hit.
    One thing that set Pedro apart was his ability to throw any pitch with the same arm slot and the same arm speed. Hitters didn’t know what to expect. MLB hitters can hit pitches if they know what is coming. It doesn’t matter if it’s a breaking ball or a 100mph fastball.
    Carroll’s argument for Wainwright doesn’t hold water. I can see a pitcher being more deceptive for a season. It takes a while for hitters to catch up with new pitchers. It doesn’t take them two seasons.
    It’s not about who has the better stuff. It’s about who was the better pitcher.
    Lincecum was the better pitcher.
    The numbers bear that out.

    I did love his line about the bonus. It sums it all up.

  2. Marc Schneider says:

    Mike and Mike in the Morning on ESPN were discussing the Cy Young the other day and were debating the wins vs. advanced metrics argument. I don’t see why the argument against using wins as the criteria is so hard to understand even if you don’t agree with it, especially if you are talking about a difference of a relatively few wins,but Golic kept saying he “couldn’t get his head around it.” I like the show, but apparently Golic didn’t need to go to class much at Notre Dame. Greenberg’s argument was that the pitcher’s job is to give up less runs than the other team; by the standard, a guy that gives up four runs but wins is “doing his job” while a guy giving up two who loses is not. It’s just dumb.