BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Baseball Writers’ Association of America: NL Cy Young Award: Tim Lincecum

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

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Baseball Writers’ Association of America: NL Cy Young Award: Tim Lincecum

Tim Lincecum of the San Francisco Giants was elected the National League Cy Young Award winner in balloting by the BBWAA. It marked only the second time in the 53-season history of the voting that a Giants pitcher was honored. The other was lefthander Mike McCormick in 1967, the first year the BBWAA presented awards in both leagues. Only one award was given out from 1956 through 1966.

Of the 32 ballots submitted by two writers in each league city, Lincecum was listed first on 23, second on seven and third on one to total 137 points, based on a 5-3-1 tabulation system. The righthander, 24, was 18-5 with a 2.62 ERA and led the NL in winning percentage (.783) and strikeouts (265).

Arizona Diamondbacks righthander Brandon Webb (22-7, 3.30 ERA) received four first-place votes and placed second overall with 73 points. Webb, the 2006 winner, was the runner-up for the second consecutive season, tying a mark shared in the NL by Warren Spahn (1960-61) and Curt Schilling (2001-02) and in the American League by Dan Quisenberry (1983-84).

Also receiving four first-place votes was New York Mets lefthander Johan Santana, the third-place finisher with 55 points. Santana, a two-time Cy Young Award winner in the AL, was 16-7 and led the NL in ERA (2.53) and innings (234?).

Repoz Posted: November 11, 2008 at 07:52 PM | 71 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: awards, giants

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.

1. Elston Gunn Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:05 PM (#3006935)

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

2. SouthSideRyan Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:10 PM (#3006937)

Seriously the neon green...enough.

3. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:10 PM (#3006939)

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!

4. Daryn Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:11 PM (#3006940)

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

5. Misirlou's got a busy day, he's wearing a vest Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:12 PM (#3006942)

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

6. 3Com Park Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:15 PM (#3006945)

The triumph of real accomplishment over stupid statistics.

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

7. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:16 PM (#3006946)

9 points for CC after all the talk.

And yeah, that background is a real attention grabber.

8. Crispix Attacks Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:16 PM (#3006948)

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

9. As foretold by the prophesy (JFSE) Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:16 PM (#3006949)

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

10. SouthSideRyan Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:17 PM (#3006950)

4th place went to Chipper Jones.

11. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:17 PM (#3006953)

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

You stole my macro!

12. Crispix Attacks Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:18 PM (#3006954)

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

13. Chase Utley, Shooty's Favorite Robot (Joey Belle) Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:21 PM (#3006958)

How does this affect Lidge's MVP chances?

14. DCW3 Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:23 PM (#3006960)

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.

15. Baldrick Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:25 PM (#3006966)

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.

16. PASTE is not impressed by Albert Pujols (Zeth) Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:27 PM (#3006968)

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.

17. flournoy Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:30 PM (#3006972)

My eyes hurt.

18. aleskel

Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:31 PM (#3006973)

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

19. Esoteric Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:32 PM (#3006974)

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.

20. Norcan Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:38 PM (#3006977)

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.

21. flournoy Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:39 PM (#3006978)

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?

22. DCW3 Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:41 PM (#3006981)

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.

23. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:43 PM (#3006984)

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.

24. Crispix Attacks Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:43 PM (#3006985)

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.

25. Alan S Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:44 PM (#3006987)

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

He'd be a better choice than Howard.

26. Crispix Attacks Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:44 PM (#3006988)

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!

27. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:46 PM (#3006993)

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.

28. Crispix Attacks Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:49 PM (#3006997)

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.

29. JMPH Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:55 PM (#3007005)

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?

30. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:55 PM (#3007006)

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.

31. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: November 11, 2008 at 08:56 PM (#3007007)

Can someone explain how that defies the laws of physics?

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

32. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: November 11, 2008 at 09:00 PM (#3007015)

Just don't start with GMs is all.

Better GM's than English professors.

33. EnderCN Posted: November 11, 2008 at 09:07 PM (#3007021)

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).

34. Howell Posted: November 11, 2008 at 09:08 PM (#3007023)

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.

35. andrewberg Posted: November 11, 2008 at 09:13 PM (#3007028)

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.

36. Athletic Supporter leads the nation in drifters Posted: November 11, 2008 at 09:28 PM (#3007044)

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

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

37. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: November 11, 2008 at 09:29 PM (#3007046)

I think EnderCN might be Halladay's mom.

38. SteveF Posted: November 11, 2008 at 09:30 PM (#3007048)

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?

39. The cushions are crowded for Edmundo

Posted: November 11, 2008 at 09:33 PM (#3007053)

40. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 11, 2008 at 09:33 PM (#3007054)

How did James Loney not get a vote?

41. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: November 11, 2008 at 09:35 PM (#3007059)

WOOOOOOO!!

42. Tom Nawrocki Posted: November 11, 2008 at 09:40 PM (#3007063)

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?

43. The District Attorney Posted: November 11, 2008 at 10:19 PM (#3007087)

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.

44. Crashburn Alley Posted: November 11, 2008 at 10:32 PM (#3007092)

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

Cole Hamels? That's my guess.

45. Dag Nabbit apealing [sic] his own check swing Posted: November 11, 2008 at 10:33 PM (#3007093)

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.

46. EnderCN Posted: November 11, 2008 at 10:34 PM (#3007094)

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.

47. Bitter Calculus Instructor Posted: November 11, 2008 at 10:39 PM (#3007098)

[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.

48. Fraud Cried the Maddened Thousands Posted: November 11, 2008 at 10:43 PM (#3007103)

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.

49. ronh Posted: November 11, 2008 at 10:45 PM (#3007105)

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

50. ntr Roy Halladay Posted: November 11, 2008 at 10:51 PM (#3007113)

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? :(

51. Tom (and his broom) Posted: November 11, 2008 at 11:00 PM (#3007118)

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.

52. The Bones McCoy of THT Posted: November 11, 2008 at 11:13 PM (#3007125)

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

W  L     GS  CG    SHO    IP      H   BB   SO     ERA
7   3    14   2     1     97.1   67   37  130    2.68
8   0    14   3     2    103.2   84   25   90    1.82 

Best Regards

John

53. Tom (and his broom) Posted: November 11, 2008 at 11:24 PM (#3007128)

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

W  L     GS  CG    SHO    IP      H   BB   SO     ERA     BA   OBP  SLG   OPS
7   3    14   2     1     97.1   67   37  130    2.68   .193  .278 .291  .569
8   0    14   3     2    103.2   84   25   90    1.82   .217  .268 .323  .591 

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

54. Long John McCaine Mutiny on the Bounty (scott) Posted: November 11, 2008 at 11:40 PM (#3007137)

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.

55. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 11, 2008 at 11:51 PM (#3007147)

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.

56. Alberto Gilardino Posted: November 12, 2008 at 12:13 AM (#3007157)

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.

57. Tom (and his broom) Posted: November 12, 2008 at 01:11 AM (#3007172)

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."

58. A triple short of the cycle

Posted: November 12, 2008 at 01:48 AM (#3007183)

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

59. The importance of being Ernest Riles Posted: November 12, 2008 at 02:02 AM (#3007187)

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."

60. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: November 12, 2008 at 02:05 AM (#3007188)

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?

61. The District Attorney Posted: November 12, 2008 at 02:14 AM (#3007194)

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.)

62. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 12, 2008 at 02:29 AM (#3007201)

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+.

63. Lassus Posted: November 12, 2008 at 02:30 AM (#3007203)

Better GM's than English professors.

Can I get an AMEN, people?

64. Mike Emeigh

Posted: November 12, 2008 at 02:42 AM (#3007207)

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

65. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: November 12, 2008 at 02:53 AM (#3007212)

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

66. Howie Menckel Posted: November 12, 2008 at 03:18 AM (#3007224)

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.

67. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: November 12, 2008 at 03:21 AM (#3007226)

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!

68. Jonk Posted: November 12, 2008 at 05:34 AM (#3007265)

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.

69. Howie Menckel Posted: November 12, 2008 at 06:16 AM (#3007282)

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!"

70. shoewizard Posted: November 12, 2008 at 06:32 AM (#3007285)

71. The District Attorney Posted: November 12, 2008 at 11:05 PM (#3007824)

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.)

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Baseball Writers’ Association of America: NL Cy Young Award: Tim Lincecum

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics