Santana was a lot better than Webb. Shouldn't be surprised, I guess. 22 wins!

Seriously the neon green...enough.

Santana was a lot better than Webb. Shouldn't be surprised, I guess. 22 wins!

Yes, but for the BBWAA this isn't bad. I'll take it!

Santana is magical. How'd he get that last 1/2 an out?

HOLY CRAP!! What knucklehead picked that color for a backround? It burns us it does!

The triumph of real accomplishment over stupid statistics.

Is it too early to rename this award the Tim Lincecum Award?

9 points for CC after all the talk.

And yeah, that background is a real attention grabber.

OH MY GOD WHAT A BUNCH OF IDIOTS WHAT A GREAT INJUSTICE TO SOMEONE OR OTHER

However, he will miss the awards ceremony, due to flu-like symptoms.

4th place went to Chipper Jones.

OH MY GOD WHAT A BUNCH OF IDIOTS WHAT A GREAT INJUSTICE TO SOMEONE OR OTHER

You stole my macro!

I admit it, I was the one who voted Sabathia #1, Lidge #2, Dempster #3.

How does this affect Lidge's MVP chances?

I have to say, this is a pretty bad choice, given that the title of the linked page is "2007 NL Cy Young winner." I mean, Lincecum only pitched 146 innings with a 4.00 ERA.

I predicted a few months ago that it would be:
1. Lincecum
2. Webb
3. Santana
4. Lidge
5. Sabathia

I also said that Webb would get 6 or 7 first place votes (not quite) and Sabathia would get one (exactly right).

Basically, this was a pretty easy one to call, even accounting for BBWAA madness.

I'm mildly impressed that the BBWAA managed to see past Webb's wins, at least.

Of course, when they give a one-dimensional platoon player his second MVP award next week, I'll be right here to belittle the intelligence of everyone involved.

My eyes hurt.

way to pick up the ######' dollar, BBWAA

You know, for all we love to hate on the BBWAA for their oft-inexplicable picks, give them credit: they got this one right this time. Sure, I would have preferred to see Santana at #2 in the voting (and wouldn't have had a problem with him winning outright), but at least they realized Lincecum was better than Webb this year.

Worry not, Manny's coming MVP award will erase these feelings of goodwill.

I would have picked Santana. He had great overall numbers, led the league in innings and ERA and came second in strikeouts, then he dominated at the end when the Mets were trying to stay alive. His last two starts of the season he went 17 innings, allowed two runs on short rest and nearly willed his team into the playoffs. That stretch ensured that even if he declines starting next year and only lives up to 85 percent of his contract every season, Mets fans will not stop apologizing for him.

Coming up that big under so much pressure on top of putting fabulous season stats, that was remarkable.

Of course, when they give a one-dimensional platoon player his second MVP award next week...

I assume you're talking about Howard. How many platoon players play all 162 games, starting 158 of them?

I assume you're talking about Howard. How many platoon players play all 162 games, starting 158 of them?

I'm sure he means that Howard and his .746 OPS against lefties *ought* to be a platoon player, not that he literally is one.

Coming up that big under so much pressure on top of putting fabulous season stats, that was remarkable.

Yeah, he was great. It's hard to believe that trade worked out perfectly and the Mets still didn't make the playoffs. Being an MLB gm is f#cking hard.

I predict that Pujols will receive 18 first-place votes, Utley will receive 4 and Howard will receive 2. But I've been wrong before.

Worry not, Manny's coming MVP award will erase these feelings of goodwill.

He'd be a better choice than Howard.

Yeah, he was great. It's hard to believe that trade worked out perfectly and the Mets still didn't make the playoffs. Being an MLB gm is f#cking hard.

If only Minaya could have predicted that Moises Alou, Pedro Martinez and Orlando Hernandez would suffer injury trouble!

If only Minaya could have predicted that Moises Alou, Pedro Martinez and Orlando Hernandez would suffer injury trouble!

Come on now, I'm trying to be more generous in my evaluations of people. It's a brand new Shooty people.

And that Luis Castillo's performance would decline! And that Billy Wagner would be divisive in the clubhouse!

But seriously, the World Series winner is almost always a team with no major injuries. I am not linking to the July thread in which I predicted that the Mets had no chance to win the World Series for this reason, if only because I didn't list the Phillies as one of the teams that DID have a chance.

From the AP story:

Listed at 5-foot-11 and 160 pounds, tiny by today’s standards for a big league pitcher, Lincecum defied detractors—and the laws of physics—by firing 97 mph fastballs past one hulking slugger after another.

Can someone explain how that defies the laws of physics?

Yay, they spread the wealth, Lincecum deserved it as much as Santana and more than Webb. And yet another nail in the NY-New England-media-advantage coffin.

Come on now, I'm trying to be more generous in my evaluations of people. It's a brand new Shooty people.

Just don't start with GMs is all.

Can someone explain how that defies the laws of physics?

According to Navy analysts, he shouldn't be able to fly.

Just don't start with GMs is all.

Better GM's than English professors.

The best pitcher in the NL last year was Santana and he comes in 3rd, sad. Santana vs Lincecum was close enough that it isn't the end of the world.

Now when Lee beats Halladay that will be a joke. Halladay had a better OPS against, more IP and played against a much harder schedule (hardest of any pitcher with 190+ IP).

While I have a huge man crush on Hallady, saying it will be "sad" when Lee wins is a bit extreme. Now when Bartolo Colon won, that was sad.

He wasn't one of the two best pitchers in the league, but you could argue that Hamels was the third best, and he didn't receive a single vote. There isn't even an argument for Lidge, and Hamels is a better case than CC.

Whole Camels has many more years ahead of him, don't you worry.

Good young pitching in the NL right now, there is.

I think EnderCN might be Halladay's mom.

In fairness to the writer, every time something defies the laws of physics those ####### physicists just change the laws.

What happened to the days when people stuck to their principles in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary?

In fairness to the writer, every time something defies the laws of physics those ####### physicists just change the laws.

What happened to the days when people stuck to their principles in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary?

The physicists changed the definition of a day?

How did James Loney not get a vote?

WOOOOOOO!!

Halladay had a better OPS against, more IP and played against a much harder schedule (hardest of any pitcher with 190+ IP).

Quick, who had the best OPS against in the NL this year? Does anyone care?

Can someone explain how that defies the laws of physics?

Lincecum is small (for a pitcher)! C'mon, try to keep up.

Halladay had a better OPS against, more IP and played against a much harder schedule (hardest of any pitcher with 190+ IP).

I don't think this is crazy to bring up or anything, but ultimately I think it's evidence towards who is the "better pitcher", in terms of "talent" or however you might put it... not evidence towards who was more valuable to their team in 2008, which is what Cy is rewarding. Value to your team in a given season, IMO, consists of giving up the fewest runs (so I wouldn't consider opposition OBP/SLG), given the schedule your team was given to play (so I wouldn't consider quality of competition.) IP of course remain relevant, but I don't think you can get Halladay past Lee just with that.

Quick, who had the best OPS against in the NL this year? Does anyone care?

Cole Hamels? That's my guess.

Halladay had a better OPS against, more IP and played against a much harder schedule (hardest of any pitcher with 190+ IP).

Ken Heintzelman mocks Roy Hallyday and his stregnth of schedule.

I think EnderCN might be Halladay's mom

I don't even like Hallday, I bad mouthed him a bunch before last year before fantasy drafts saying he was overrated and anyone who drafted him near his ADP was insane (foot meet mouth I guess). But he was the best pitcher in the AL without a doubt last year in my opinion.

Lincecum and Santana are really darn close so not a huge deal, now if Webb had won it I'd be pretty irate.

[15] Note who actually wrote that order in the first place. The one thing I got wrong though was saying nobody else would get any votes. I didn't anticipate Dempster.

Hamels was great this year, no doubt.

227.3 IP, 3.09 ERA, 145 ERA+, 196 Ks, 53 BB, 28 HR

Also receiving no votes was this pitcher:

200.7 IP, 3.14 ERA, 135 ERA+, 201 Ks, 80 BB, 14 HR

Not quiiite as good as Hamels, true. But close.

And a year younger: it's Chad Billingsley.

I see that one writer didn't vote for Lincecum.

I think EnderCN might be Halladay's mom

I don't even like Hallday, I bad mouthed him a bunch before last year before fantasy drafts saying he was overrated and anyone who drafted him near his ADP was insane (foot meet mouth I guess).

Mom, I know you think I'm overrated and you hate me, but did you really have to say that in front of everyone? :(

Halladay had a better OPS against, more IP and played against a much harder schedule (hardest of any pitcher with 190+ IP).

Quick, who had the best OPS against in the NL this year? Does anyone care?

Whether you are talking OPS or OPS+ the leader in the NL was Lincecum of course....with Webb second.

Fun with endpoints: final 14 starts of 2008: Linecum (top) vs. Santana:



Best Regards

John

Looks to me like Santana was just luckier....

Honestly, they got the result right, which is as much as we can possibly ask for. I think Santana v. Lincecum was basically a tossup, and Lincecum getting it is pretty awesome.

I don't agree at all that Halladay was better than Lee this year, but I *do* think Cy Young voting should take strength of opposing hitters into account. If we define value as wins above replacement, a replacement pitcher facing better opposing hitters would allow more runs than the same replacement pitcher facing worse opposing hitters. I just don't think the adjustment is significant enough to overcome Lee's advantage.

As much as I hate the Giants, good for Timmy. Webb probably was the frontrunner until those two games against the Dodgers in late August.

Timmy is also a video game cover boy now.

"Whenever I'm hanging out at home or traveling on the road, you can find me playing video games, and I'm definitely the best gamer in the clubhouse by far. I'm incredibly stoked that 2K Sports picked me to represent Major League Baseball 2K9, and I look forward to lending my baseball knowledge to the development process."

Just the second Cy Young award in S.F. Giants history. Congratulations Timmy.

Hey isn't that the same green screen that John McCain used for his "dehydrated babies" speech?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DqR7zis99I

I see that one writer didn't vote for Lincecum.

That would be Chris De Luca of the Chicago Sun-Times.

"It's funny because toward the end of the season, in early September, I was thinking Lincecum would be in my top two," De Luca said. "I thought Webb's victories (22) stood out to me more than anything, and Lincecum didn't have the victories. Twenty victories was a big deal. We had a stretch there where no one was hitting 20.

"Santana (undefeated after June 28) stood out because there was so much pressure not just being in New York, but to be who he is. With Lidge being a perfect closer (41-for-41 in save chances), that was a tough pick for me, not to pick him No. 1."

In fairness to the writer, every time something defies the laws of physics those ####### physicists just change the laws.

What happened to the days when people stuck to their principles in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary?

Well he did get re-elected (sort of) in 2004... And I suppose you could say he stuck to his lack of priniciples... Er, can someone direct me to the political thread?

I don't agree at all that Halladay was better than Lee this year, but I *do* think Cy Young voting should take strength of opposing hitters into account. If we define value as wins above replacement, a replacement pitcher facing better opposing hitters would allow more runs than the same replacement pitcher facing worse opposing hitters.

But a guy hypothetically replacing Lee is going to have to face the Royals more often than the Red Sox. That is the nature of pitching for the Indians. All that you can do to win games for the Indians, is to face the teams that the schedule makers say the Indians have to play. Again, Lee might not be as good a pitcher in the sense that he's less "talented" or that you wouldn't trade Halladay for him, but in 2008, he added more wins to the Indians' ledger than Halladay did to the Jays'. (I'm of course discussing wins in an abstract sense, not the MLB official-scorer "win" and "loss" stats.)

So? The point is that a replacement pitcher on Cleveland will have a lower ERA than a replacement pitcher on Toronto. Thus, a pitcher with a given ERA (3, 4, whatever) is worth fewer wins above replacement to the Indians than he is to the Blue Jays. This is no different than saying (ceteris paribus) that a guy with a given ERA in the NL is worth fewer wins above replacement than a guy with the same ERA in the AL, because the opposing hitters are weaker.

I agree with the penultimate sentence in your post, because I don't think that the strength-of-opponents factor is big enough to overwhelm Lee's advantage on fielding-adjusted ERA+.

Better GM's than English professors.

Can I get an AMEN, people?

The point is that a replacement pitcher on Cleveland will have a lower ERA than a replacement pitcher on Toronto.

All else being equal, that is. Other factors that affect pitching performance (team defense and ballpark in particular) favor the pitcher on Toronto, and IMO probably help his ERA more than the strength-of-opponents factor hurts it.

-- MWE

Someone also pointed out that handedness vs. KC is something that actually worked against Lee.

I haven't found anything that separates Lincecum and Santana at all, except maybe Santana's monster final week in the heat of battle. But a tie woulda been fine with me.

I think the tie breaker was Matt Cain's inability to win a game with the Giants behind him. In contrast to that, Lincecum looked super clutchy!

Today on PTI, Michael Wilbon and Rick Reilly agreed that Tim Lincecum should not have won the Cy Young. Wilbon went so far as to say Lincecum should've finished no better than fifth. He stated Brandon Webb should have won because (paraphrased) "nobody wins 20 games any more." This was the first time in probably two years that I watched PTI. I'm glad I won't see it tomorrow.

What's so interesting about that is that it's based on a 1960s-1970s mentality.

Starting pitchers often completed games, so they arguably did have more 'say' in whether they won (way less than people understood, but still). Of course, they were facing pitchers (until AL post-1972), and catchers and shortstops with no power, and usually second basemen and centerfielders in the same boat, and no bandboxes or steroids - so it was much much easier to finish a game.

To apply a similar standard to a different game is just bizarre, but it's human nature I guess.

The Mets blew 7 games in the 8th or 9th when Santana had a lead.
They are almost literally saying, "Should Santana have won? I'm not sure - wait until I see what Aaron Heilman and friends do. If they suck this year, then I'll downgrade Santana. He has less than nothing to do with their performance, but what the heck. And if the D-Backs bullpen is good while Webb is showering and text-messaging, well, I have to give bonus pts to Webb for... well, I'm not sure, but bonus pts anyway!"

The point is that a replacement pitcher on Cleveland will have a lower ERA than a replacement pitcher on Toronto. Thus, a pitcher with a given ERA (3, 4, whatever) is worth fewer wins above replacement to the Indians than he is to the Blue Jays.

But wait a minute here... let's simplify the real-life situation to illustrate my point... imagine Lee only faces KC and DET, and Halladay only faces TB and BOS, but they're both eligible for the same award. Let's further stipulate that KC/DET hitters are 20% better than TB/BOS hitters, and that Lee's statline is 10% better than Halladay's. Why does Lee, in his quest to earn the Pitcher Who Helped His Team Win Most in 2008 Award, have to put up a level of performance that indicates he could be getting out the TB/BOS hitters as well as Halladay can? What does the level of competition that Halladay is facing, ultimately have to do with the won-lost impact of Lee's performance at all? I don't see how it does, and I don't think the concept changes when you allow that Lee does have to face TB/BOS sometimes, just less often than Halladay does.

(Again, I understand that the hypothetical-Lee I just described is really the "worse" pitcher, deserves the HOF less, etc., but I'm speaking strictly in the context of a single-season retrospective award.)