BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: SF Gate: Shea: One voter left out Lincecum

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

SF Gate: Shea: One voter left out Lincecum

My name is De Luca
I think it’s because i’m clumsy

Told that his name might not be treasured among Giants fans today, Chris De Luca, national baseball writer of the Chicago Sun-Times, said, “I’m glad I don’t have season tickets any more.”

De Luca didn’t cost Lincecum, who still won in a landslide by receiving 23 of 32 first-place votes, and he expressed admiration for Timmy Terrific, who went 18-5 with a 2.62 ERA and became the first Giant in history to lead the majors in strikeouts (265).

De Luca stood by his ballot. Voters are allowed to pick the top three pitchers and De Luca had Brandon Webb first, Brad Lidge second and Johan Santana third.

“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.”

Repoz Posted: November 12, 2008 at 12:43 AM | 22 comment(s)
Related News: General, San Francisco, Awards

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. Halofan Posted: November 12, 2008 at 12:58 AM (#3007276)

I bet this guy thinks Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame.

2. Roger Cedeno's Spleen Posted: November 12, 2008 at 12:59 AM (#3007277)

I bet this guy thinks Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame.

He should have his childhood heroes taken away...

3. Buddha Posted: November 12, 2008 at 01:00 AM (#3007278)

chicago baseball writers are amazingly stupid.

4. Rocco's Not-so Malfunctioning Mitochondria Posted: November 12, 2008 at 01:05 AM (#3007280)

I could understand not using secondary stats if they were new or something, but at this point for someone who earns his money writing about baseball to use pitcher wins as the basis for determining greatness is just plain negligent.

5. Mr2bits Posted: November 12, 2008 at 01:16 AM (#3007281)

I could understand not using secondary stats if they were new or something, but at this point for someone who earns his money writing about baseball to use pitcher wins as the basis for determining greatness is just plain negligent.

You don't even have to go that far to see the effects of luck on their respective win totals. Just look at the game logs. Only twice this year did Webb leave games eligible for the W and watch the bullpen blow it, compared to 5 times for Lincecum. Take this into account, and their win totals are virtually even.

6. Jonk Posted: November 12, 2008 at 02:29 AM (#3007292)

I said this in the other Lincecum thread, but I think it's relevant here:
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.

7. Elston Gunn Posted: November 12, 2008 at 02:44 AM (#3007293)

i think we should be patting the BBWAA on the back for having only one guy leave Lincecum off his ballot. I mean, obviously Webb was no better than the 3rd best pitcher in the league, but there are universes where you can argue that Lidge was more valuable than Lincecum, and there's no significant difference between Lincecum and Santana. It could have been much, much worse.

8. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 12, 2008 at 02:44 AM (#3007294)

La la la I can't hear you 22 winzzzz. "This one goes to eleven" x2.

9. Howie Menckel Posted: November 12, 2008 at 03:04 AM (#3007299)

"Only twice this year did Webb leave games eligible for the W and watch the bullpen blow it, compared to 5 times for Lincecum. Take this into account, and their win totals are virtually even."

Only 3 times this year did the Giants blow a lead for Lincecum in the 8th or 9th.
"Only" 7 times this year did the Mets blow a lead for Santana in the 8th or 9th.

10. Roy Hobbs of WIFFLE Ball Posted: November 12, 2008 at 03:08 AM (#3007300)

Today on PTI, Michael Wilbon and Rick Reilly agreed that Tim Lincecum should not have won the Cy Young.

I saw that too. Wilbon and Reilly were both totally ignorant on this. Wilbon was especially indignant about it and I guarantee you he couldn't recite a single stat for any of the top finishers other than the 22 wins for Webb and that Lidge didn't blow a save.

11. DCW3 * Posted: November 12, 2008 at 03:54 AM (#3007303)

It could have been much, much worse.

At least everybody on the ballot was actually a pitcher.

12. BeanoCook Posted: November 12, 2008 at 06:38 AM (#3007316)

But the Giants didn't make the playoffs. If the MVP voters hold this stupid standard, surely this clown think what the team does matters for the CY Young award.

13. HOPE: Madison Obamagarner (Flynn) Posted: November 12, 2008 at 06:41 AM (#3007317)

Wilbon's not usually that bad. I'm blaming his suck on Reilly. Reilly just turns everybody around him into a moron. Bill James could sit next to Reilly and within 10 minutes he'll be talking about how A-Rod isn't clutch and how Jetes is and is the bestest captain there ever was.

14. tribefan Posted: November 12, 2008 at 07:18 AM (#3007320)

Wilbon's not usually that bad.

I also used to think that. Not lately though, maybe too many years of listening to Kornheiser's nonsense has rubbed off on him.

15. MM1f Posted: November 12, 2008 at 08:58 AM (#3007344)

Reilly is suck, but no one listens to PTI for smart baseball analysis... and I say that as someone who likes the show.
Neither of 'em is really a "baseball guy." When they get onto talking about baseball the conversation is barstool-esque. That is often a good thing, they can be real funny, but don't look for 'em to be cutting edge or anything

16. a wider scope of derision Posted: November 12, 2008 at 10:28 AM (#3007385)

If Webb's season has been reversed, and he'd finished the year winning 10 straight with a 1.98 ERA in September, De Luca probably wouldn't have been the only one to leave Lincecum off his ballot. (Just wait until too many voters "justify" Howard ahead of Pujols--if the Phils had had Pujols they would have clinched in August.)

Webb's really not a horrendous pick. The BoB is a lot tougher place to pitch than US Cellular or Shea, and his FIPs are better than Johan's. But not thinking Lincecum is one of the three best pitchers in the NL is kinda wacko.

17. jwb Posted: November 12, 2008 at 12:24 PM (#3007471)

But not thinking Lincecum is one of the three best pitchers in the NL is kinda wacko.

True, but having only one of that kind of wacko in a poll of 32 sportswriters is impressive. Lidge did get a lot of media love for his 41/41 save chances.

18. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: November 12, 2008 at 12:53 PM (#3007502)

But not thinking Lincecum is one of the three best pitchers in the NL is kinda wacko.

You could say that about any of the top four.

19. a wider scope of derision Posted: November 12, 2008 at 01:08 PM (#3007514)

You could say that about any of the top four.

But who's your fourth?

After Lincecum, you could strong cases for rounding out your remaining spots with two of Santana, Webb, Hamels, and even Haren. (I'd rank 'em that way, but could be convinced otherwise.)

I don't see how you can have Lidge in your top three and not have Sabathia ahead of him. In which case your top four is Lincecum, Sabathia, Lidge, and Santana? (And putting Johan fourth seems kinda wacko.)

20. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: November 12, 2008 at 01:20 PM (#3007522)

I don't think this is a big deal. It could have been Peavy or Dempster or something. You may disagree with him, but guys he picked were at least logically defensible. It's not like he picked Derek Lowe or Ted Lilly or something.

21. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 12, 2008 at 01:21 PM (#3007523)

I could understand not using secondary stats if they were new or something, but at this point for someone who earns his money writing about baseball to use pitcher wins as the basis for determining greatness is just plain negligent.

You don't even need to move beyond wins and losses to recognize Lincecum's season. He went 18-5 for a team that won 72 games. He had a quarter of his team's wins and the non-Lincecum Giants went 54-85 (that's a 63-99 pace). Lincecum was 2nd in the NL in wins and winning percentage (Adam Wainwright went 11-3). Look at wins, losses, and nothing else and it's still hard to justify leaving Lincecum off of your ballot.

22. a wider scope of derision Posted: November 12, 2008 at 01:32 PM (#3007531)

The guys he picked aren't terrible choices.

Sure. Webb, Lidge, Santana all deserve top 5 mention.

But admit it: not having Lincecum is a little terrible.

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

SF Gate: Shea: One voter left out Lincecum

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

My Bookmarks

Hot Topics