The MLB Playoffs Home Field Advantage Debate… Proof Is In the Stats

October 11, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.

Does home field advantage matter in the MLB playoffs? The Rays and Rangers would argue “absolutely not.” The Giants and Braves would argue “probably not.” But I’d like to use more than anecdotal evidence to make my argument that home field advantage does not really matter in the MLB playoffs.

Sports like football and basketball appears to give the fans a significant amount of influence on the outcome. Many of us have seen occasions in a football or basketball game where noise generated by the fans in attendance directly affected play on the field or the court. In football, crowd noise can affect anything from the ability of the offense to hear the quarterback’s audible to the ability of the defense to communicate. In basketball, the crowd noise can often be quite personal due to the proximity of the fans to the court. Many players are affected by hearing all sorts of unspeakable things yelled in their ears at close proximity and high volume. If somebody was shrieking in your ear, would your thought processes – let alone your jump shot – be totally normal?

Baseball, however, doesn’t seem to be as directly influenced by crowd noise. Well beyond the anecdotal evidence of the first several MLB playoff games, baseball does not have well-defined times in the game where nearly everyone in the crowd knows, “If I cheer now it could have a direct impact on the game.”

Sure, when the opposing team is down to its last strike the fans of the home team are screaming their head off. But, in reality, what impact does that have? Does the cheering make it difficult for the home team pitcher to focus on the pitch he needs to throw to get the hitter out? Does it impact the hitter at the plate? Does it impact both the pitcher and batter to some extent? It’s difficult to tell. I’m sure it gives the home team players warm fuzzies to hear fans screaming their head off, but does it really help? I wasn’t sure, but while I was researching this article I was thinking, “Eouldn’t it be great if someone did a study on this so that I could present empirical evidence that home field advantage in baseball doesn’t matter?”

As it turns out, my prayers were answered.

I found a blog post on improvementguru.com that cited writings by Dr. Ray Stefani of California State University. Dr. Stefani’s work expressed home field advantage as a percentage arrived at by subtracting home losses from home wins and dividing that number by total games. Based on that calculation, Major League Baseball finished dead last. Basically, according to Dr. Stefani’s research, there is no sport where home field advantage matters less than Major League Baseball. I recommend a visit to improvementguru.com to read the complete post – it’s interesting.

Basically, I am not sure I can provide a more compelling argument than Dr. Stefani’s statistical analysis. I can tell you that the Twins lost their first two at home, that the Giants split their home games, that the Rays lost their two home games, and that the Rangers lost their two home games. While that may be compelling to some, it is just a snapshot of a few days of baseball. For a game in love with statistics and history, isn’t it fitting that a historical, statistical analysis shows that it doesn’t really matter where a MLB playoff game is played?

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The MLB Playoffs Home Field Advantage Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Optimist Prime

The MLB Playoffs Home Field Advantage Debate… There’s No Place Like Home

October 11, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Optimist Prime.

Home field advantage matters. It’s not just a slogan to drum up interest in the All-Star game, it’s a fact. Although stats tend to reveal that the advantages are absolutely minimal, they are still advantages. Statistics don’t measure everything. They don’t take into account the subtleties of the boost a pitcher gets in a thunderous stadium when the applause rattles the batter with and 0-2 count, or when the crowd parts for a fielder diving into the stands to make an incredible grab. Position players like playing at home because they know the nuances of the stadium and batters typically feast on home cooking as well, which really goes to show when it comes to the playoffs – there’s no place like home.

All About Momentum

Obviously the crowd can be a momentum changer. In the post-season every single at bat matters, and when a team strings together a couple of hits in front of the home fans, the reaction can be electric. During these intense moments when the crowd comes alive, the momentum shift is nearly tangible.
The confidence quaking effect of the crowd is perhaps even magnified when it comes to rookies and players without post-season experience. There is an obvious reason why veteran players seem to get more work than their younger rotation mates in October. But even the most veteran and composed player can find themselves susceptible to the roar of a crowd. And then, teams that were once down and out can rally back and take the upper hand, and a deafening crowd can shake the composure of even the most unflappable of players.

Case in point, Dave Roberts steal of second base during the 2004 ALCS against the New York Yankees, perhaps the most famous game changing performance in all of baseball history. The Red Sox faced elimination down three games to none, but because Roberts swiped second they went on to one of the biggest comebacks in all of sports history. Roberts, himself, admitted to nervousness, as everyone in the stadium knew he was going to attempt the steal. Can you even imagine the apprehension he would have had if he were attempting that steal in the Bronx? Who knows, if that game had been played in New York perhaps the nerves would have gotten the best of Roberts instead. Obviously, Rivera was shaken after the play and it ultimately cost him the save – and the Yanks the series – which may not have happened outside of Fenway. Sure the Yankees actually had home field advantage in the series but that night the advantage rested in Boston, and anyone who believes the contrary is foolish.

The Tenth Man

Baseball may be a game of stats, but it’s impossible to quantify a crowd. Baseball fans have the ability to alter the outcome of a game like no other. In basketball and football, crowd participation can be boiled down to simple distraction, but baseball is different. In baseball fans can actually change the outcome of at bats. Fans reaching into the field of play can cause a well hit ball in the corner which could be a triple for a speedster to become a ground rule double simply by touching the ball.

Fan interference can honestly make or break a big game and can often be one of the aforementioned series changing momentum shifts. Not to pander to the judge too much, but I’m sure that Sports Geek remembers that fateful night when Steve Bartman robbed Moises Alou – and Cubs fans everywhere – of a fly ball that could have altered the course of the Cubs destiny forever. While that particular instance didn’t help the home team, there are other instances where interference has. In the 1996, fan interference actually put the Yankees in position to win a crucial game one of the ALCS against the Baltimore Orioles. When a 12-year-old Yankees’ fan, Jeffrey Maier, reached out and snagged a well hit, but arguably short, ball off the bat of Derek Jeter it was ruled a home run. The Yanks go on to win the ALCS and the World Series. While not every instance of fans touching a ball in play led to World Series rings, there is something to be said for having an extra game on home turf, and how that can sometimes be like having a tenth man in the stands.

Playing the Field

Probably the most important reason to have home field advantage is the field itself. Each stadium plays differently. Some stadiums are a pitcher’s paradise, and others are a hitter’s haven. There is a big difference in playing a ball hit off the monster in Fenway and a ball hit out to the short porch in Yankee Stadium. There is a difference in playing in an open air stadium like the new Target Field, or a dome like “the Trop.” Each and every stadium necessitates a different approach at the plate and in the field, and nobody knows them quite like the home team.

Put yourself in the manager’s shoes. Would you rather have home field advantage, or does it really make no difference? I’d be shocked to find any manager out there that would say they’d rather play the most important games on the road – no matter what the stats say.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The MLB Playoffs Home Field Advantage Debate | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The Most Disgraced Athlete of All Time Debate… The Bloom is Long Gone

October 7, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Bleacher Fan.

What an amazing career. We will get to the stats in a moment. Before we do, conjure up some memories of Pete Rose playing baseball. I’m guessing a few specific memories popped into your heads. For me, I like the one of Pete Rose hustling in the All-Star game and bowling over the catcher. Sure, that was a violation of the unspoken rules and regulations in baseball. But it was also a beautiful play that embodied the hustle and attitude millions of dad’s across American were trying to instill in their children. Never quit. Never take a play off. Never phone it in. Pick the way you want to play, and play in that manner at all times, regardless of the consequences.

Rose used to be a legitimate role model. Until the truth set us all free. It turns out he was a chiseler. A liar. A fraud, and a phony.

Some athletes become disgraced for decisions others make, and some are disgraced by their own actions. Baseball legend Pete Rose falls into the latter category. He chose the path he so publically followed, and failed to confront the consequences until it was far too late for him to save face and respectability. Like a devastating and slow leak, negative information about Rose has leaked out for years. First it was just gambling. But, it has gotten worse.

The Pete Rose situation is a strange one. It seemed as though Pete Rose could not do anything that would further tarnish his image and reputation with American sports fans. Yes, despite the proven – and now admitted – gambling Pete Rose did on baseball, new evidence arises of further disgrace.

Before we come to that, however, it’s best to contemplate just how bad betting on baseball is as a player. If you have ever taken delivery on a sports magazine, you know the type of valuable information that is contained within it. You know, too, if you bet on sports that you need good information to help inform decision making. So, imagine the position Pete Rose was in? He knew the MLB scouting reporting on every player, every pitching match up. He built line up cards. He positioned the team on defense. That type of information could never be purchased, yet Pete Rose used it to bet on his team and make gobs and gobs of money. It’s not just that he gambled on the game, it’s that he cheated everyone out of respecting him. And what sucks the most is that he could have earned and kept that respect.

Pete Rose had 4,256 hits in his 24 year career. That’s right, he played baseball – productively – for 24 seasons and he owns the hit record. He batted .303 for his entire career. He won Rookie of the Year in 1963, MVP ten years later, second in the voting another season. He was also the rare player-manager that seemed to make it work.

Some pundits and fans will relentlessly defend Pete Rose arguing that just because he is a lousy person does not mean he cheated on the game. I mean, what harm do a few bets really do? After all, Rose never ADMITTED to cheating on the game, or gambling AGAINST his team. It is consistent with Rose’s personality to bet ON his team, then spur them to victory. His stats are amazing, right?

Except in June of 2010, very quietly, Deadspin.com reported on an X-ray that was done on the bat Pete Rose used in 1985 as he was chasing down Ty Cobb’s all time hit record. The picture does not lie. Yep, that’s cork. Pete Rose is not just a gambler, he’s a cheater too. Surprised? If so – why? We all know and understand Pete Rose’s character now. There are few surprises the man can throw at us.

Given this additional character evidence – on top of the years of self-perpetuating, stigma-building lying – it is not evident that Pete Rose is the most disgraced, and the most disgraceful, athlete in American sports history. His name has been dragged through the mud year after year after year since he stopped playing. Rose has done nothing to stop it, either. He tried to come clean – 14 years too late – in Sports Illustrated in 2004. Then, when it turn out that was not the complete truth, he again came “completely clean” in 2006 when he admitted to betting on the Cincinnati Reds nightly. Yes, every single night. And, in his arrogance, that admission was supposed to be exactly what people wanted to hear to quiet the criticism. Heh. How insulting.

Pete Rose has proven time and again that he just isn’t a good, trustworthy, upstanding person. He is a disgrace to baseball, to record-holding, to fanaticism, and to history. He further tarnished his imagine after it was discovered that he used a corked bat, too… for who knows how many seasons? No player in any sport has more publically, more thoroughly, and more dramatically tarnished his imagine that Pete Rose.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

2 Comments | The Most Disgraced Athlete of All Time Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The Most Disgraced Athlete of All Time Debate… Panama Lewis

October 7, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Sports Geek.

There is a litany of names of people who have disgraced themselves in sports. From Almonte to Zaun, sports history books are littered with people who have tarnished the game and sullied their own legacy by being involved in activities that cheated their games.

But to decide who among those is the most disgraced really is more challenging than one might think.

Some, like Tonya Harding, have become more of a punch line than a disgrace. Others, like Pete Rose, have actually managed to work their way back into being supported by much of the public, rather than being vilified. And as for steroid users, they are a dime a dozen.

But there is one person in sports with so little regard for others that his selfishness literally endangered (and arguably cost) the life of another athlete. That person is boxing trainer Carlos ‘Panama’ Lewis.

Here is a picture of what Panama Lewis was willing to do to win a game:

Brutal, isn’t it?

On June 16th, 1983, one of Panama’s fighters, a journeyman opponent named Luis Resto, was scheduled to take on a very exciting, undefeated prospect named Billy Collins, Jr.

By the time Resto was scheduled to fight Collins, Lewis had already developed a reputation as being a cheater after allegations were made that he would give his fighters tainted beverages with banned stimulants (rumors ranged from a breathing pill to cocaine), all for the intention of providing an artificial energy boost to his fighters during a fight.

Nothing was ever proven, but people were already calling Panama’s integrity into question.

Still, no one on that summer night in 1983 expected to become witness to professional sports’ most unforgiveable act of cheating in all of sports.

Collins entered the fight at 14-0, and Resto, at 20-8-2, was expected to be little more than a notch on Collins’ belt as he climbed the ranks from prospect to contender, and hopefully champion.

But ten rounds later, it was Resto whose hands were raised in victory after having bludgeoned Collins over the course of the bout.

At the conclusion of the fight, though, as Resto was receiving congratulations for his win, Collins’ father and trainer, Billy, Sr., uncovered the most heinous act of cheating possible – Resto’s gloves were loaded.

When Billy, Sr. took Resto’s hand as part of the customary congratulation that is passed around post fight, he felt that Resto’s gloves were far too thinly padded to be regulation. Acting both as a trainer and a father, Billy, Sr. sought to protect his son by demanding that Resto’s gloves be inspected for tampering.

It didn’t take the New York Boxing Commission long to discover that much of the padding in Resto’s gloves had been removed by Panama prior to the fight, and later it was also revealed that Panama had soaked Resto’s wraps in plaster of Paris.

You see, steroids may help an athlete recover from injury faster, or hit more homeruns, and betting on the game may help a person profit financially. But when a fighter loads his gloves, he is literally turning his hands into weapons. Boxers wear gloves for a reason, to cushion their hands so that the risk of permanent damage is minimized. Lewis, however, used Resto’s gloves to increase, rather than decrease, the damage done with each blow.

Panama Lewis had basically turned Resto’s hands into cinderblocks, and encouraged Resto to use those cinderblocks as a weapon to assault Billy, Jr.

The direct impact that Panama’s (and Resto’s) actions created was a criminal conviction and prison sentence for both men. And as a result of the physical punishment he endured, Collins was never able to fight again. His vision was permanently damaged, and he was forced into retirement.

Indirectly, Panama ruined the life of Collins, both figuratively and literally.

After the fight, upon learning that he could never fight again, Collins became severely depressed, and became an alcoholic. Then, just months after the fight, Collins wrecked his car, dying in the accident (which many believe was intentional suicide).

There have been many crimes committed against the notion of fair play and sportsmanship. For as long as there has been competition, there have been people trying to circumvent the rules to gain an unfair advantage. But none in the modern era of sports have endangered the lives of competition in the way that Panama Lewis has.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Most Disgraced Athlete of All Time Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The Sabathia versus King Felix Debate Verdict

October 6, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless and Sports Geek.

This season, 2010, has been the so-called “Year of the Pitcher” (just don’t tell Charlie Morton, Kenshin Kawakami, Javier Vazquez, Kevin Milwood, A.J. Burnett or a handful of other pitchers who had less than successful 2010 campaigns). Two shining examples of pitching greatness are featured in the debate Sports Geek and Babe Ruthless tackled. Both C.C. Sabathia and Felix Hernandez had outstanding season, but in different ways.

Sabathia, as argued by Babe Ruthless, represents the type of pitcher who wins games. That’s certainly Sabathia in 2010. The guy just wins games. In fact, he won 21 of them this season. He was no doubt helped by an extremely potent lineup (to the tune of 7.31 runs of support per nine innings pitched). But still, the bottom line is to win the game C.C. gave his team that chance.

Babe also writes that sometimes statistics are overrated, citing some strikeout totals from this past season. Having strikeout pitchers is essential to winning in the post-season (just ask the 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks with Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling). But that doesn’t always translate to being near the top of the league in wins in the regular seasons.

Sports Geek had the task of defending the honor of the ERA, which is fully represented by King Felix this season. Sports Geek argues that the pitcher can only control what happens when he is on the field, not when his offense is at the plate. In other words, it’s no fault of Hernandez that his team is only scoring 3.75 runs per nine innings pitched when he pitches, which is over 3.5 runs lower than the other pitcher in this debate. That doesn’t exactly speak well of the lineup that Seattle consistently threw out there. Yes, I am talking to you Chone Figgins, Casey Kotchman, and Jose Lopez. Actually, I am talking to everyone except Ichiro. Sports Geek even found a good quote from a proven ace Justin Verlander who said that wins are not that most important stat. Though, in fairness, I’d somewhat expect a pitcher to say that because of the number of times a pitcher loses a chance at victory due to a blown save by the bullpen.

To me, the bottom line surrounding this debate is what defines a pitcher’s dominance. Is it wins, or is it ERA? After reading the arguments I vote ERA, so that is why Sports Geek wins this debate. Babe Ruthless talked about how statistics can sometimes be deceiving. Phil Hughes had 18 wins this season, but with a 4.19 ERA. Derek Lowe had 16 wins, but with an ERA of 4.00. Meanwhile, look at a guy like Braves pitcher Tommy Hanson. In 16 starts after the All-Star break his ERA is a Cy Young-like 2.51. Want to guess what his win-loss record is? Maybe ten wins? Wrong! He’s 2-6, thanks to an anemic offense. That doesn’t take away how dominant he was in the second half of the season, though.

Hernandez’s average win-loss record can’t overshadow his ERA, not to mention the fact that he threw nearly 250 innings. A pitcher can’t control what goes while he is in the dugout. He can only control what happens when he is on the mound. No one did it better this year than Felix Hernandez.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Sabathia versus King Felix Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The Sabathia versus King Felix Debate

October 5, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless and Sports Geek.

The Major League Baseball playoffs begin this afternoon, and while all the writers at The Sports Debates are excited about that, we thought we’d use today to take a look at the American League Cy Young race and the fascinating, unique breakdown of the top two candidates.

There are two obvious candidates, and if you’ve followed the American League at all this season you know who they are. In one corner we have C.C. Sabathia. He finished the season with 21 wins, which was two more wins than anyone else in the American League. Yet, he finished with an ERA of 3.18, which was good enough for seventh in the AL. It’s also important to note that Sabathia is starting game one for the Yankees on Wednesday night.

In the other corner we have Felix Hernandez. While King Felix can’t come close to matching the wins that Sabathia had, he dwarfs his counterpart in this debate with an ERA of 2.27, which was good enough for first in the AL. Obviously, the guy had dominant stuff.

So what shall we do? Who deserves the AL Cy Young award?

Babe Ruthless will argue that C.C. Sabathia deserves the Cy Young award because the win-loss record truly defines the value of the Cy Young award. Sports Geek, on the other hand, will argue that Felix Hernandez deserves the award because a pitcher’s ERA defines true dominance.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Sabathia versus King Felix Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The Sabathia versus King Felix Debate… Team Stats For Individual Awards

October 5, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.

It’s funny. The writers here at The Sports Debates usually sit around in our weekly production meetings and disparage the idea of individual awards and the acclaim those who receive them get. If you ever want to hear a humorous hour-long rant about how much the ESPYs suck, be a fly on the wall in a TSD content meeting.

Yet, here you are today reading our musings on the most virtuous way to win the Cy Young award. Sure, today’s debate topic is entitled, “The Sabathia versus King Felix Debate,” but let’s not be fooled into thinking this debate is about two solid American League pitchers. This one is about which key statistic used to evaluate the winner of the Cy Young award – win-loss record versus ERA – is more acceptable.

The idea that win-loss matters more – or even as much as – a pitcher’s ERA is crazy. The quality of a pitcher’s performance can only be evaluated on what that pitcher can control. The only factor in a baseball game a pitcher can control is his own performance. Therefore, statistics that take into account more than just the individual for an individual award are suspect at best, and unreliable at worst. Using win-loss to gauge a pitcher’s excellence is the worst.

Let’s take, for example, the award’s namesake, Cy Young. Cy Young had a bunch of wins and losses, but his ERA is what contributed to his esteem as one of the greatest pitchers of all time. Sure, Young has the most career wins ever for any pitcher in baseball with 511. But, he also has the most losses at 316. He also has a hard-to-believe 2.63 ERA over the course of a 22 year career. Sadly, he failed to ever win any Cy Young awards. He must have been so disappointed.

Sabathia finished in 22nd place in ERA for 2010 with 3.18. That is a solid season from a solid pitcher, but that is not the type of quality season a Cy Young award winner receives the hardware for. There are 21 other pitchers in baseball that surpassed his ERA. A Cy Young award winner must surpass conventional and stretch the outer reaches of the statistical categories. Within that context, note that Felix Hernandez led all of Major League Baseball with a 2.27 ERA for the season. His 13-12 does not in any way reflect the quality of his pitching performances game after game. He is the ace pitcher of the Mariners’ staff and routinely faced the opposing team’s best pitcher. Yet he failed to be intimidated and still delivery one outstanding performance after another in 2010.

The ERA is truly the measuring stick by which a quality pitcher is judged. If you don’t believe me, take into account what ACTUAL PITCHERS say. Detroit Tigers’ pitcher Justin Verlander said about Greinke’s award last season, “He had an outstanding year. I know that his win (total) wasn’t as good as some would like to see out of a Cy Young winner, but I believe that wins are not the most telling stat of how a pitcher performed.”

I have researched and can bore you all with twenty different examples where ERA is a better use case to judge the quality of a pitcher’s season, and therefore his legitimacy as a Cy Young award winner. But, why go there when I can point out that even Joe Morgan, quite possibly the WORST in-game commentator across all sports and all networks, admits that a team’s record matters much less for the Cy Young award than it does for the MVP. Morgan isn’t so bright, so if even HE gets it, why can’t Babe Ruthless?

Morgan is right, though (man, it really bothers me to say that). The ERA is personal while a team’s win-loss is not. If the Cy Young is designed to measure the quality of an individual performance, how can a team stat be used fairly in the judgment? It just doesn’t make sense.

The Cy Young award identifies the best pitcher in the league. In no way does the criteria of the award take the quality of a pitcher’s team into account. For an example, consider the case of former New York Yankees pitcher Chien-Ming Wang. Wang won 19 games in both 2006 and 2007. He clearly pitched well, but he also clearly played for a great team that padded his win-loss stats. Nineteen wins don’t happen on accident, but a high number of wins are not the prevailing criteria for the greatness of a pitching season. A 3.63 and 3.70 ERA are solid, but not Cy Young territory by any stretch.

A pitcher simply cannot control the quality of the hitters on his team. In the context of this debate, Hernandez isn’t the GM or manager of his team. He cannot sign players or coach them to their potential. He can’t help that Ken Griffey, Jr. wanted some shut eye during a game, or that the lineup could not consistently hit, or that bullpen couldn’t protect a lead. What he was able to control he did masterfully, as seen by his exhibition of the best ERA in all of baseball.

Hernandez was second in the Cy Young award voting in 2009 even though his team was not playoff worthy. He had a 2.49 ERA last season, too – along with 19 wins. But he lost the award to the Royals’ Zach Greinke… a pitcher with three fewer wins but an unrivaled ERA of 2.16. It sure seems like ERA mattered more than win-loss record last season. It should also matter that much this season, giving Hernandez the Cy Young award instead of C.C. Sabathia.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Sabathia versus King Felix Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The Sabathia versus King Felix Debate… Sabathia Dethrones a False King

October 5, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Sports Geek.

Since today is the first day of the MLB Post Season, The Sports Debates decided to celebrate the season with an old fashioned “who is better” style debate over two of baseball’s best – C.C. Sabathia and Felix Hernandez. The ace from the Big Apple owns the league when it comes to wins, but King Felix rules from his thrown atop the ERA ranks. Both pitchers are unquestionably among the best in baseball, and both pitchers are crazy talented. But Sabathia is the only one to get consistent results from his talent. He converts starts into wins, and that is the all important difference between contender and pretender.

Effective Pitching Wins Championships

We have all heard the old cliché that pitching wins championships, and it is true… or rather mostly true. I think a more appropriate expression would be “effective pitching wins championships.” Effective pitchers are the guys who get outs, not just the first time through the lineup, but when the game is on the line. They are the guys that keep leads even when their team’s offense isn’t firing on all cylinders. But most importantly, effective pitchers win games. A guy doesn’t have to have the most dominant stuff to be the more effective pitcher, he just has to use his stuff to win ball games.

Unfortunately for Felix Hernandez, despite all his talent, his ability to convert that talent into W’s remains largely untapped. At season’s end Hernandez owns a 13-12 record, and as a result finds himself on the outside looking in during October. Obviously he is at a disadvantage with a less explosive offensive than what backs Sabathia, but to simply dismiss a difference of eight wins as a lack of offense would be foolish. Sure the Yankees have power, but the Mariners have speed. They boast a formidable lineup with a terrific one two punch at the top of the order. With arguably the best leadoff man in baseball, Ichiro Suzuki, atop the order and a sparkplug in the number two hole in Chone Figgins Seattle certainly has the potential to put up enough runs to stay in games. Similarly, it would be equally as inappropriate to attribute all those losses as a lack of bullpen help. Again, Hernandez may not be able to turn the ball over to Mariano Rivera, but David Aardsma racked up just two fewer wins than Mo this season, so that theory doesn’t hold either.

C.C. Sabathia, on the other hand, is certainly an effective pitcher. He has won 21 games this season. That is more than any other pitcher in the American League, and ties him for the most wins in all of baseball. It should also be noted that Sabathia was able to accomplish this in the ultracompetitive A.L. East, frequently facing potent Tampa Bay Rays and Boston Red Sox lineups. Sabathia is the unquestioned ace of the New York rotation and has led his staff to accumulate 94 wins, the second most in all of baseball. The bottom line, however, is that Sabathia gets wins. Whether it is the fact that he works deep enough into the games, or he just comes through in the clutch, Sabathia finds ways to win games – and that’s the difference.

Sometimes Stats Lie

Baseball is probably the most statistically driven sport, but when judging players it is important to consider the right categories because sometimes stats can be deceiving. I do not mean that statistics are faulty or inflated, but that certain statistics are not valid measurements of a players worth.

The strikeout statistic is a perfect example. During the regular season, 14 players recorded 200 or more strikeouts, among them were John Lester (225 Ks and a 19-9 record), Roy Halladay (219 Ks and a 21-10 record), and Adam Wainwright (213 Ks and a 20-11 record). Looking at these players’ dominant strikeout totals and impressive win-loss record one could assume that players with large strikeout totals must also be effective pitchers that win a large majority of their games. But that would be a misnomer. In fact, of the 14 players to record 200 plus strikeouts, nine of them had double digit losses as well, and three of them only won one more game than they lost, including Felix Hernandez. Similarly, while low ERAs may sometimes be indicative of excellent pitching, the stat is not always an accurate correlate of winning baseball. Only a little more than one-third of pitchers in the top 21 in ERA won more than 14 games.

In the end the only statistic that really matters is winning. C.C. Sabathia knows how to win better than almost any other pitcher in baseball, and it is because of that fact that I would trust him with the ball anytime he is healthy, rested, and ready to take the mound. His successes on short rest in last season’s playoffs are a testament to his ability. This season he’ll be given the chance to put those skills on display again, while Hernandez will be thinking about 2011. That’s just about as much proof as you need.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Sabathia versus King Felix Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The Ranking a Banned Program Debate Verdict

October 4, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan.

The fact that the Southern Cal Trojans are not playing in a bowl game this season is not open for debate. But whether or not that bowl ban should extend into a ban from the rankings as well… now that is a whole different story.

Bleacher Fan and Loyal Homer each examined the issue but found themselves on very different sides.

In his argument Loyal Homer defended his firm belief that a post-season ban should also warrant a ban from the rankings as well. His main hang up with allowing a team, like USC, with a bowl ban to continue to be nationally ranked is that it brings attention and exposure (see a previous debate involving BCS notoriety) to a team that is supposedly being punished. This is a valid point, especially in a society where the media coverage of celebrity misbehaviors often exceeds that of those who are actually doing things right. Despite their violations, USC continues to garner media coverage and will likely stay in the public eye so long as they are nationally ranked.

Loyal Homer, however, failed to address the fact that a school like USC would likely continue to receive a great deal of media coverage because it is a rather large school which has had a national following for quite some time. But his point was made. Maintaining a high profile for schools violating NCAA policy is contradictory and sends the wrong message to the public.

Loyal Homer also called attention to the fact that a banned school’s inclusion in the national ranking system comes at the expense of another school. Southern Cal’s inclusion in the top 25 means that another school which is not on the business end of NCAA punishments is denied a top 25 ranking and the attention and exposure that goes with it. This exposure means a great deal to schools that fight just to become bowl eligible.

Bleacher Fan explained that while the NCAA may have been justified in their actions against USC, a ban from the rankings would be both unnecessary and inappropriate. The thesis of his argument – that a post-season ban should only apply to the post-season – was equally obvious and direct, yet well put. By banning USC from bowls for the next two years the NCAA was not attempting to undermine the competitiveness of their football program during the regular season but rather enact punishments to deter further rules violations.

Furthermore, Bleacher Fan’s assessment that bowls and rankings are independent of each other was dead on. The ranking system is not set up to simply determine bowl selections as much as it is to compare the most competitive football teams in the nation. Unless USC is banned from regular season play, then the program can surely be counted in the latter category.

But what sealed the deal for me in this debate was Bleacher Fan’s argument that banning a team from being ranked undermines the validity of the ranking system, and that the rankings ban would be punishing the wrong people. On both counts he is absolutely right. The ranking system cannot claim true validity if rankings are artificially inflated or deflated because of aspects other than actual football performance. If teams banned from the post-season are winning against other nationally competitive teams they should be credited for it with a high ranking. Imagine, if you will, if a team like Boise State were to take on USC this season. Can you imagine the uproar and backlash if they beat the Trojans but did not see a significant rise in their rank since USC was not bowl bound because of off the field issues? It just wouldn’t make sense.

It would not make sense to punish the current team for the sins of the past. The 2010 USC team was not even high school aged when the violations their team is currently being punished for occurred. It is one thing to take an ethical stand against rules violations but it is another thing entirely to undermine the achievements of a blameless group of players for the transgression of the responsible parties that are no longer present to feel the sting of punishment. This air tight logic is why I’m awarding this victory to the Bleacher Fan.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Ranking a Banned Program Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The Ranking a Banned Program Debate

October 3, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan.

Earlier this summer the BCS brought the pain when it punished the University of Southern California for its lack of institutional control. As a result of a four year investigation into inappropriate benefits received by USC players, the BCS stripped the school of several scholarships, demanded forfeiture of previous wins, and, among other things, banned the university’s football program from BCS bowls for two years. The punishments doled out as a result of this process got us here at The Sports Debates thinking – “If the Trojans are banned from a BCS bowl game, then should the team not also be banned from the rankings?”

As of this weekend the Trojans were ranked in the top twenty teams, but the question at hand is, “Should USC be ranked at all?” It is not a matter of whether the Trojans are one of the most competitive programs in the nation, but whether they still warrant a ranking because of their bowl ban. No matter how well USC performs or who they beat, they will still not participate in a BCS – or any other – bowl at season’s end.

Which leads us to today’s debate: Should a ban from bowls include a ban from the rankings?

Loyal Homer believes it should. Obviously there is logic supporting this argument, but to win this debate he will have to prove that the team deserves a ranking ban.

Bleacher Fan, on the other hand, believes a bowl ban is not a good idea. He believes that although bowl bans are a punishment it does not actually change how well a team is playing.

Whoever wins this debate will be number one in my book, but their poll ranking may be a different story.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Ranking a Banned Program Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.