Voting for Haren: A Conversation with Will Carroll
One of the byproducts of yesterday’s National League Cy Young Award voting was the controversy of two ballots. Two writers, Will Carroll of Baseball Prospectus and Keith Law of ESPN, left Chris Carpenter off of their respective ballots. Carroll voted for Dan Haren of the Arizona Diamondbacks while Law cast a vote for the Atlanta Braves’ Javier Vazquez. The eruption was almost immediate as writers, bloggers, talk radio hosts, and television personalities wondered who in the world would have the audacity to leave Carpenter off a ballot. After all, popular opinion was (and still is) that he was a favorite to win the award. MLB Network personality Harold Reynolds wondered how someone could leave Carpenter off the list and chastised Carroll and Law for costing Carpenter the award (which isn’t true). Every year, there is always a debate about the validity of the voting process and who exactly gets to cast a ballot. In the case of Will Carroll, the process was thoughtful, based on a number of factors, and executed with the utmost respect for the award. What more could be asked of him?
When looking at Carroll’s ballot, there really can be no debate about his top two as he voted for Adam Wainwright and Tim Lincecum. That falls in line with most voters as Wainwright actually had more first place votes than Lincecum. It was Carroll’s choice of Haren for the third position that brought the scrutiny. But, Carroll’s process is one that takes the voting seriously. “I want to consider EVERYTHING. I wish I’d been able to watch all the starts before making the vote, but even after doing that, I wouldn’t change my vote”, describes Carroll of his process. For years, the newer form of the media would complain about the old-guard newspaper writers not taking the vote seriously and simply voting based on who they covered, past reputations, and outdated statistics. Both Cy Young Award winners, Lincecum and Zack Greinke, illustrate a general shift in the media from the traditional wins evaluation to a look at more advanced metrics.
Will Carroll’s selection of Haren is based on his philosophy of looking at everything, including statistics. “I really considered Carpenter and think he was a very close fourth. Haren did a lot of things well this season — look at his WHIP, his WARP3, the K/9 — but he was also on a team that pretty much guaranteed everyone would ignore him.” Indeed, Haren led the Major Leagues with his 1.003 WHIP, an astounding figure by any standard. He also averaged a little over 2 strikeouts per nine innings more than Carpenter. Pitching over 36 innings more than Carpenter, Haren was able to strikeout 79 more batters. Carpenter had a great season, but it is not ridiculous to consider Haren a peer. Haren did have a dominant season toiling for a team that committed 124 errors, the second most in the game. It is not blasphemy to give Haren the vote. It was cast with fact and analysis of those facts. “It’s not a protest vote, but I felt with all that (his statistics) plus making all his starts, it was that much better than Carpenter”, describes Carroll. Just like Law’s decision to vote for Javier Vazquez, the vote was not a first place vote or one made to stand apart.
There are two main benefits from this discussion. First, as stated previously, this vote marks a departure from the seemingly outdated ways pitchers were analyzed by the media. It is a step in the right direction as the stereotypical newspaper writer is looking beyond the win total. It also validates the place for sabermatricians as some very well developed tools are available for fans, writers, and evaluators to better understand and appreciate the game. But, more importantly, this movement allows two non-print writers like Will Carroll and Keith Law the platform to not only write about their choices, defend their choices, but simply to make their choices. The Baseball Writers Association has been very slow to change with the growing media; the fact that Carroll and Law are being discussed is a victory in itself.
For his part, Carroll feels that because of his medium (Baseball Prospectus), there is even added scrutiny to his (and Law’s) ballot. “I think if it was me and a mainstream writer, there wouldn’t have been as big a story. Keith started at BP, but we have almost nothing in common. He’s Harvard-educated, has a scouting background, can do stats in his head that I can’t spell, and has some shirts that cost more than my car. I’m an injury guy who values health and consistency, who tries to use all the available resources to make a reasoned decision.” Their respective places of employment are definitely stoking the fires on this. Some newspapers are billing this as a “Revenge of the Nerds” type affair, painting Carroll and Law as two number crunching, internet writing stat-geeks who chose their pitchers based on inane, rare, statistics rather than choose Carpenter who hardly ever lost (17-4).
In reality, those who voted for Carpenter made the proper vote; he was worthy of the vote. But, Carroll’s and Law’s ballot is just as valid. Dan Haren was one of the more dominating pitchers in the game today. Was he the best? No, Tim Lincecum was clearly more dominant as was Adam Wainwright. But, is he worthy enough to be put into the discussion with Carpenter? Yes, he is. After watching many of the candidates’ starts, Carroll even throws another name into consideration (even though he wouldn’t have voted for him), “(Jair) Jurrjens was really good and I’d barely noticed him during the season. Keith Law has a good argument for Javier Vazquez. I said that I wish I’d considered him more, not that I would have voted for him.” The point is that although many simply boiled the race down to three candidates, there were a few other pitchers who had comparable seasons. Using an approach of statistics matched with watching games is always a good basis for a vote.
Everyone has the right to disagree with Will Carroll’s vote. A case can be made for either pitcher (and Vazquez to that too). But, his vote cannot be criticized as he exercised everything that Baseball fans always ask from the voters—thought, analysis, and thoroughness. For that, there can be no complaint. In all of this debate, the best thing happened, something that is a trademark of the game. The votes elicited conversation about the game and the skill of a pitcher. For that, the sport is better. With that, the process of voting was a success. The process allowed Will Carroll and Keith Law to bring two pitchers to the forefront whose seasons had long been forgotten. There’s certainly nothing wrong with that.
