http://www.perhapanauts.com/blog/uploaded_images/burro_donkey_pinata-734567.jpg

Uh, robbed? Did this guy watch Lincecum pitch even an inning this year?? He was clearly the most dominant player of this year.

Homer hack columnist says local guy got robbed. Lather. rinse. repeat.

lol

Gordon is an idiot, I honestly think that any of the three could/should have won it, and that nobody could claim to have gotten jobbed if they didn't win.

(Wainwright) won three games in April, two in May, three in June, four in July, four in August and three in September.

This is the greatest paragraph ever written in the history of words and letters.

Winning games is the whole point of playing,

Correct. AS A TEAM. The player that gives his TEAM the best chance of winning should get the award.

I don't think the writers would have made a mistake by choosing Wainwright. More innings than The Freak, over 200 K, comparable ERA, etc.

Many baseball writers downplayed the value of choosing to have Albert Pujols as a teammate rather than Travis Ishikawa, since Lincecum won just 15 times while receiving much, much less run support than Wainwright.

*fixed

I read the FA and most of his argument is about innings not wins, actually. (and the comments are funny in the so-bad-its-good sense)

It is funny that the writer sees no disconnect between "Winning games is the whole point of playing, so that statistic should carry great weight" and his speculating later on how the Cards' bullpen blowing Wainwright's would-be 20th win might have cost him the award.

He's right that throwing a lot of innings is valuable but Lincecum only pitched 7.2 fewer innings than Wainwright. If Lincecum had thrown 190 innings or something (like Carpenter did), the author would have a better case.

(Wainwright) won three games in April, two in May, three in June, four in July, four in August and three in September.

Spare me your fancy sabermetrics, nerd-boy. Forget about stats like WpM (Wins per Month), get out of your mother's basement and just tell me how much Budwesier each candidate pounded.

get out of your mother's basement and just tell me how much Budwesier each candidate pounded.

If that's what awards are going to be based on, we might as well just give Wade Boggs every award ever. Although I think he drank Miller Lite and not Bud.

I don't think the writers would have made a mistake by choosing Wainwright.

I don't think they would have made a mistake either. Of course, I also don't think they made a mistake by choosing Lincecum. The three of them were all close enough in terms of performance that good cases could be made for any of them.

If a Bullpen Fatigue Index was drawn up he would still ignore because it would be one a them new fandangled statistics people keep hollerin' bout.

Derek Jeter has never been credited with a win. Neither has Albert Pujols. Obviously they're just in it for the money.

Uh, robbed? Did this guy watch Lincecum pitch even an inning this year?? He was clearly the most dominant player of this year.

I don't find this a particularly Ziffian comment. Please try again.

Winning games is the whole point of playing, so that statistic should carry great weight.

My brain shut down when I read that. I wonder how he felt about Greinke winning; is he one of the many who felt the AL was a no-brainer and the right guy won?

Many baseball writers downplayed the value of actually winning games, since Lincecum won just 15 times with a decent supporting team.

Tbe Giants?
decent SUPPORTING team,

let's see, who was the best player after the Freak? Cain? How does that help the Freak win games?

It is funny that the writer sees no disconnect between "Winning games is the whole point of playing, so that statistic should carry great weight" and his speculating later on how the Cards' bullpen blowing Wainwright's would-be 20th win might have cost him the award.

It's my birthday, I'm allowed one "der" moment, so: Neither do I?

(and the comments are funny in the so-bad-its-good sense)

They really go after Keith Law for voting Vazquez second. It's really funny.

He's right that throwing a lot of innings is valuable but Lincecum only pitched 7.2 fewer innings than Wainwright.

And allowed 6 fewer runs, so that really goes nowhere.

It's my birthday, I'm allowed one "der" moment, so: Neither do I?

That wins are teammate-dependent.

Linking Jeff Gordon? Repoz, you are a bad, bad man.

Okay, then I rescind the characterization of my confusion as my der moment. The Cards' bullpen blowing Wainwright's 20th win and the resultant impact on his CY chances is not 'disconnected' from "wins are important and should be given great weight in CY voting." There's no mutual exclusivity there. There's no logical inconsistency in having the position that win totals should be heavily considered in voting while also acknowledging the fact that there is some teammate dependence.

Lincecum struck out Pujols and Holiday 3 times this year, Wainwright didn't get either out all year long, how can he even be in the conversation?

You know who actually got jobbed? The Irish, that's who.

Amirite?

Homer hack columnist says local guy got robbed. Lather. rinse. repeat.

Close thread, please. This describes everything of use that will come in this thread.

Not that it is germane to selecting the best pitcher, but on what planet does the Giants 2009 Offense represent a decent supporting team?

They scored 657 runs, 4.06 per game. Better only than such offensive juggernauts as PIT, SD and HOU. They had the worst OPS+ in the NL by 7 points.

"Gordon is an idiot, I honestly think that any of the three could/should have won it, and that nobody could claim to have gotten jobbed if they didn't win."

I hate when somebody steals my post

:(
;)

You know who actually got jobbed? The Irish, that's who.

Amirite?

Yes.