Posted 9:36 AM by Sean
Barry Zito wins the AL Cy Young. Mike Wells, of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, is quoted as saying that "Pedro cashed it in by not playing the last week of the season," referring to Martinez's seeming refusal to risk injury in what he called "meaningless games." I'd forgotten about that. At the time, the Red Sox were still mathematically alive, and the Angels were struggling. A good argument for Zito, I'd say, especially since a good chunk of the difference in their innings pitched was at Pedro's option, rather than because of injury or circumstance.

Posted 12:05 PM by Sean
Matt Szefc makes the case for Barry Zito as AL Cy Young. This one's weird: Szefc argues that, because Zito pitched more games against over-.500 opponents, he should get the nod over Pedro Martinez. But then he presents numbers demonstrating that Zito was substantially worse against those opponents than Martinez (Zito 18 starts, 3.66 ERA; Martinez 13 starts, 2.14 ERA). Zito is clearly the beneficiary of starts against bad teams here. Granted, he had five more starts in which to be roughed up by good teams, but Martinez's ERA against good teams was actually slightly better than his ERA against the sub-.500s. I think that's kind of a wash, then - sure, Martinez might have had worse numbers if he's pitched the same schedule, but there's absolutely no evidence for it.

Lowe, meanwhile, does show a benefit from pitching against weaker teams. Given that his ERA and IPs are very similar to Zito's, and his strikeouts are substantially less (and yes, okay, I admit strikeouts should be a factor too since they're the only form of out that the pitcher gets unassisted by his defense), I can't see voting for Lowe over Zito.

So it comes down to Zito or Martinez. Zito's ERA was 2.75, about 22% worse than Martinez's 2.26. Zito's IPs, however, were 229.1, 15% more than Martinez's 199.1. Martinez had a 31% edge in strikeouts, 239-182. The question is, how do we weigh these? Would you rather have a guy who pitches very well for a little longer, or a guy who pitches brilliantly for a little less?

It's very close. Durability is important because it provides consistency and doesn't require much juggling from the manager. But let's say Zito pitched well enough to win an expected 20 games in 230 innings, while Martinez pitched well enough to win an expected 20 games in 200, then broke down and had to be replaced with the biggest scrub in the bullpen, who threw the next thirty innings with a 7.50 ERA. You've got to figure that there's at least some chance that, during that stretch, the Red Sox will pick up a win or two, right? So after 230 innings, the Red Sox would actually be +1 or +2 compared to the A's.

The problem is applying this to the current question. I don't know if I've ever seen a study correlating ERA to expected wins, although I'm sure one exists. I don't have time at the moment to look for it, but I will in the next few days. I suspect, however, that when all the math is done, Martinez's 22% advantage in ERA outweighs Zito's 15% advantage in innings pitched, or, at the very least, it's close enough that Martinez's higher strikeout total would provide the tiebreaker. So, if I had a vote, I'd...well, I'd have thought about it in time to do the math. Provisionally, though, I'd say Martinez.

You won't hear me complain if they pick Zito, though, and I expect they probably will based on durability, his performance over the past two years, and his team making the playoffs.

Posted 11:25 AM by Sean
The L.A. Times says the Angels have offered contract extensions to the entire coaching staff. I wonder how long they're for? Obviously, I hope they all re-up, but Roenicke, Black, and Griffin have all been mentioned as prime candidates to manage their own teams in the near future.

Posted 1:35 PM by Sean
Mike Scioscia is the AL Manager of the Year, and rightly so. Bringing a team back from a 6-14 start to finish 99-63 is pretty impressive, moreso considering that they were picked to finish last by almost everybody.

In the NL, Tony La Russa gets the honors. Makes sense to me - it seemed like he had to do a lot more managing than most this year, with deaths, disablements, and other assorted disasters going on in St. Louis.

Posted 2:54 PM by Sean
Randy Johnson wins his fourth straight Cy Young Award. Talk about your no-brainers. There are exactly two statistics that really matter when you talk about starting pitchers: ERA and innings pitched. How well the guy pitched, and how often.

I think a lot of people still look at strikeouts, walks, and opponents batting average, but to me those are just indicators of how a pitcher goes about compiling a low ERA; voting on those is like saying that "Dogs Playing Poker" is a superior painting because the paint is durable.

And wins, of course, are irrelevant. Giving up three earned runs per nine innings does not suddenly become more impressive if your teammates score four. It's an individual award, and statistics that depend on how the rest of the team does shouldn't be evaluated. Somewhere, someone is looking at a pitcher's low ERA and so-so won-lost record and thinking, "that guy pitches just well enough to lose, he doesn't know how to get it done." That person should take up watching football.

In a related vein, we're being treated yet again this year to a discussion of what the "Most Valuable Player" means. Here are the instructions from the Baseball Writers Association of America:

Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.
2. Number of games played.
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
4. Former winners are eligible.
5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot.

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, and that includes pitchers and designated hitters.

Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

Okay. The controversy stems from the argument that the best player in the league, who everyone pretty much agrees is Alex Rodriguez, is not necessarily the most valuable player in the league, because he played on a last place team, and if you took him away, they would still have been a last place team, so how much value did he add?

I used to argue that "Most Valuable Player" didn't necessarily refer to the player's value to his team, but rather to the league - value was defined as how much better he made his team, plus how much better the other teams would be if that person played for them, too. But after seeing the actual instructions, it's clear that you're supposed to vote for "the most valuable player in each league to his team." Well, fine. But then the instructions go on to define value as "strength of offense and defense," which sure sounds a lot like "best player" to me.

In any event, the AL MVP will be announced on November 12.

Posted 9:32 AM by Sean
Mets owner Fred Wilpon is thinking of terminating Mo Vaughn's contract because Mo is overweight. Dude, he just came off six months of playing professional baseball! If he's overweight now, what's he gonna look like in February?

Posted 9:29 AM by Sean
The Yankees are raising ticket prices, and blaming the new labor deal. It's become increasingly in vogue among baseball writers to argue that using increased costs as an excuse for raising ticket prices is a sham. The argument goes like this: fans only care what they're spending for a ticket, not how much profit the team makes. Therefore, teams charge what people are willing to spend, which is completely independent from whatever it might cost the team to produce their product. To put it another way, teams would never lower their prices if their costs went down, so why should it work in reverse?

This is a pretty argument. It's also wrong. For starters, it assumes that baseball teams are completely rational economic actors, which, to make an understatement, they are not. Baseball teams' attitudes toward the law of supply and demand needs no better illustration than their ticket prices for various games. By and large, most teams charge the same price for a particular seat regardless of demand; seeing a mid-week game in Wrigley Field against the Padres is going to cost you the same as seeing a Saturday afternoon game against the Cardinals (assuming you sit in the same place, of course), despite the fact that the former won't be sold out and the latter will be. While some teams (including the Yankees) discount some tickets, so far they've made only baby steps toward pegging price to demand.

Secondly, regardless of what should be true in theory, cost is almost always included in pricing models anyway. When you run a red light and hit some little old lady in her Stutz Bearcat, your insurance rates go up because the insurance company suddenly has to pay on your account, and isn't making as much profit (and yes, I know that this argument can be turned around to say that what's really happening is your willingness to pay has increased, but in the case of insurance you HAVE to pay at all times because the law says so). When your wife tells you she's pregnant, you start thinking about asking for a raise, or finding a new job. Most baseball teams are owned by conglomerates of very rich men who have bought baseball teams not because it's a great monetary investment but because it adds to their prestige, but they DON'T want to be hemorrhaging money. The important thing to them is not making wheelbarrowsful of cash, but having a predictable bottom line. So when costs go up, ticket prices also go up.

All of which is not to say that the owners aren't weasels. They are. They're even weasels on this issue, because they manipulate costs like there's no tomorrow, such as paying themselves huge "consulting fees" so that they'll show losses. It's just that the true weaseling occurs at a deeper level than this "rising costs have nothing to do with rising ticket prices" stuff.