I think the moment John Kruk declared Eric Milton was his Cy Young pick at X point in some season (A-S break in 2004 I would guess) because he had the most wins, and the guy with the most wins is Cy Young no matter what, is pretty much when I stopped watching studio shows on ESPN except for football's version of Gameday.

It wasn't a conscious decision, but I still think that's when it happened.

I don't watch Gameday any more really either. Too many human interest stories. The stuff on ESPNU before games on Saturdays is much better. If I have time to kill before games start and want to watch some pregame stuff, that's where I am.

ESPN personalities are offensive in their ignorance.

This just in: Stupid peeople on stupid network say stupid things.

Details to follow.

This baseball bozo went on to explain his stance about Kershaw not deserving the Cy Young by throwing out IPBB, IPXYZ and some other alphabetical garbage that actually showed Halladay and Lee ahead of Kershaw on an “official” chart.

If you take a homely girl and ask enough guys, you can also find someone who thinks she’s pretty enough to rank on some kind of list. You mean to tell me that we’re supposed to throw out wins, losses, ERA and strikeouts and delve into inane stats that only Billy Beane would appreciate in order to determine the best Cy Young candidate?

I haven't looked at it closely but Kershaw certainly seems to deserve consideration. The above doesn't do anything to make me think that the guy writing it is any smarter than any of the ESPN nitwits though.

I haven't looked at it closely but Kershaw certainly seems to deserve consideration.

If the guy wins the pitching triple crown, he will win in a walk. In the CYA era, no one who won the triple crown failed to get 100% of the first place votes.

Halladay's and Lee's last starts have made this much closer.

Kershaw: 226.0 IP, 20-5, 2.27 ERA, 53 BB/242 K, 5 CG/2 SHO, 6.8 WAR (BBREF)
Halladay: 227.2 IP, 18-6, 2.41 ERA, 34 BB/217 K, 8 CG/1 SHO, 7.0 WAR (BBREF)
Lee: 226.2 IP, 16-8, 2.38 ERA, 42 BB/232 K, 6 CG/6 SHO, 6.7 WAR (BBREF)

On local (LA) radio yesterday one of the hosts (John Ireland) spent part of his show saying he would vote for Ian Kennedy because he had the same numbers as Kershaw (I assume he meant wins) and his team won the division. Maybe it was just to fire up the listeners but there really is no bottom to the sports guy stupid bucket.

For sake of completeness:

Kennedy: 216.0 IP, 20-4, 2.88 ERA, 53 BB/194 K, 1 CG/1 SHO, 5.4 WAR.

Six shutouts? Cliff Lee has thrown six shutouts?

If the guy wins the pitching triple crown, he will win in a walk. In the CYA era, no one who won the triple crown failed to get 100% of the first place votes.

If he wins the pitching triple crown this year, but the race remains as tight as it is, he will not win 100 percent of the vote. That's my only prediction.

Six for Lee, including three in a row in June:

Apr 14 PHI @ WSN W,4-0 SHO W(2-1) 9.0 3 0 0 1 12
Jun 16 PHI FLA W,3-0 SHO W(7-5) 9.0 2 0 0 2 4
Jun 22 PHI @ STL W,4-0 SHO W(8-5) 9.0 6 0 0 1 3
Jun 28 PHI BOS W,5-0 SHO W(9-5) 9.0 2 0 0 2 5
Aug 4 PHI @ SFG W,3-0 SHO W(11-7) 9.0 7 0 0 0 8
Sep 5 PHI ATL W,9-0 SHO W(16-7) 9.0 5 0 0 0 6

Six shutouts? Cliff Lee has thrown six shutouts?

In the games he didn't throw a shutout, he has an ERA of 3.13 and is 10-8. Obviously he's too inconsistent to deserve the Cy Young. </sports radio>

I remember the year Tim Belcher threw 8 shutouts. I think it was 1988 when it seemed anyone with a decent fastball was posting a 3.50 ERA and winning a dozen games.

But yes, Tim Belcher. Eight shutouts. Crazy

The AL leaders are James Shields and Derek Holland(!) with four.

If the guy wins the pitching triple crown, he will win in a walk. In the CYA era, no one who won the triple crown failed to get 100% of the first place votes.

Roger Clemens in 1997 only got 25 out of 28 first-place votes (Randy Johnson got two, Randy Myers got one).

The AL leaders are James Shields and Derek Holland(!) with four.

Actually Holland has been quite good since the beginning of July. I can imagine him being a #1 next season.

Six shutouts? Cliff Lee has thrown six shutouts?

And he barely missed a seventh last week, when Jose Lopez hit a solo homer off of him with two outs in the ninth.

Six shutouts? Cliff Lee has thrown six shutouts?

He's also thrown 8 SHO innings twice where he wasn't allowed to pitch the ninth, and 8 2/3 twice where he was unable to complete the SHO (once loaded the bases before being relieved, and once served up an 0-2 solo HR which tied the game and ultimately got him a ND).

So take out the 10 games in which he didn't start with 8 SHO innings, and his ERA is 3.82 and he's 7-8.

Halladay's and Lee's last starts have made this much closer.

Kershaw: 226.0 IP, 20-5, 2.27 ERA, 53 BB/242 K, 5 CG/2 SHO, 6.8 WAR (BBREF)
Halladay: 227.2 IP, 18-6, 2.41 ERA, 34 BB/217 K, 8 CG/1 SHO, 7.0 WAR (BBREF)
Lee: 226.2 IP, 16-8, 2.38 ERA, 42 BB/232 K, 6 CG/6 SHO, 6.7 WAR (BBREF)

I do think it's funny that this list doesn't include what I consider the most important stat for a starter and that is era+, not that it makes a difference as Kershaw leads there also, but thought it was kinda funny that the first stat I would look at wasn't included in this list, and that a stat that I would never consider(War) for the Cy Young was included, at least it was the good War.

It's always fun to talk about a race as close as this. But as long as you go with one of those 3 guys I don't think you can go wrong.

All three have been consistently dominant this season. Other than Lee's superhuman SHO numbers, the stats are almost interchangable.

Picking one of them to win the CY is bit like taking the three most beautiful women on the planet and trying to decide which one is better looking. It would come down to what part of her we chose to focus our attention on, her eyes, hair or her bumpy parts.

If you were taking sheer Ws and Ks, Kershaw has a slight edge. If you talk SHOs, it's Lee. WAR and BB/K ratio would give us Halladay.

I like to consider park factors. Obviously a pitcher will have better stats in a park like Safeco where flies just don't carry into homers as often as in a place like Coors. With that figured in, I think Halladay and Lee should get bumped to the top of the list because the Philly field is a band box compared to Dodger Stadium.

But I have a feeling that those two will each steal some votes from the other and Kershaw will win.

This just in: Stupid peeople on stupid network say stupid things.

Details to follow.

And other stupid people complain about it.

So take out the 10 games in which he didn't start with 8 SHO innings, and his ERA is 3.82 and he's 7-8.

This reminds me (not that I'm accusing you of this, I know you don't mean it this way) of watching a Yankee game one time with ARod up at the plate. A graphic came up showing that he was something like .350 with 24 home runs in games the Yankees won, and .260 with 7 homers when they lost. The announcers were using this as evidence that he wasn't a great player and wasn't clutch because "he couldn't hit when the Yankees really needed him". It really broke new stupid barriers, as apparently it didn't occur to them that maybe the reason they won those games was because ARod hit .350 with 24 homers in them. You mean teams win games when their players have big days and lose when they don't? Genius!

So take out the 10 games in which he didn't start with 8 SHO innings, and his ERA is 3.82 and he's 7-8.

I've actually heard this argument against Lee. I'd pick Kershaw, but I had to respond that if you took away Kershaw's starts with an ERA below 4 he'd have an ERA above 4.

This reminds me (not that I'm accusing you of this, I know you don't mean it this way) of watching a Yankee game one time with ARod up at the plate. A graphic came up showing that he was something like .350 with 24 home runs in games the Yankees won, and .260 with 7 homers when they lost. The announcers were using this as evidence that he wasn't a great player and wasn't clutch because "he couldn't hit when the Yankees really needed him". It really broke new stupid barriers, as apparently it didn't occur to them that maybe the reason they won those games was because ARod hit .350 with 24 homers in them. You mean teams win games when their players have big days and lose when they don't? Genius!

and of course the opposite is true, teams lose when the other team shuts down their best player... I always find those type of numbers to be truly baffling when announcers/analyst try to use them to prop up a point.

Jose Lopez hit a solo homer off of him with two outs in the ninth.

He should have his Cy Young Award taken away!

(or should have I gone with "Is that even legal?")

Adding a little more murkiness to the CYA debate, Lee and Halladay both have 4 unearned runs while Kershaw has 7. Normally that would be completely ignorable but with things so close, it's further reason to ignore the tiny ERA differences. By the way, Kennedy has just 2 unearned runs.

I didn't mean imply that Lee's record without SHO innings was indicative of anything, but for whatever little it's worth without their best 10 starts by game score:

Kershaw 10-5, 3.36, 145 2/3 IP
Lee 8-8, 3.73, 140 IP (one of the SHO gets replace by a 9IP 1ER game going by GSc)
Halladay 10-4, 3.21, 146 IP


Halladay strikes me as being the most deserving of the Cy, but I'd be surprised if Kershaw doesn't win it as of right now. Maybe if Lee and Kershaw both stink up the joint in their next starts and Halladay is dominant he can sneak in.

This reminds me (not that I'm accusing you of this, I know you don't mean it this way) of watching a Yankee game one time with ARod up at the plate. A graphic came up showing that he was something like .350 with 24 home runs in games the Yankees won, and .260 with 7 homers when they lost. The announcers were using this as evidence that he wasn't a great player and wasn't clutch because "he couldn't hit when the Yankees really needed him". It really broke new stupid barriers, as apparently it didn't occur to them that maybe the reason they won those games was because ARod hit .350 with 24 homers in them. You mean teams win games when their players have big days and lose when they don't? Genius!

This drives me batshit! Everybody hits worse in losses and better in wins, it's freakin' selection bias. The losses contain pretty much all the games when the offense was shut out, and the wins all the games where the offense went gangbusters.
Simmons tried to do the same thing comparing Ellsbury's OPS in wins and losses in a recent podcast (funnily enough not to point out how unclutch he was, but how important he was to the offense). The difference was about 250 points of OPS... almost exactly the same as the difference for the whole Red Sox team.

FWIW:
Yankees BA in wins .302; OPS .899
Yankees BA in losses .204; OPS .616

And don't get me started on the stupidity of using raw HR's for a team that wins two thirds of their games...

And don't get me started on the stupidity of using raw HR's for a team that wins two thirds of their games...

Whenever the Sox played the Jays back when they had Manny, the Jays announcers *always* made a point of mentioning that Manny has more HR against the Jays than any other team* and used this to beat into our heads that he "kills" the Jays. I felt like screaming he plays them 20 bloody times a year! Now, he did kill the Jays, but he killed every ####### team and his numbers against the Jays were hardly notable. Drove me crazy.

*This isn't true anymore, but it was for awhile.

This drives me batshit! Everybody hits worse in losses and better in wins, it's freakin' selection bias. The losses contain pretty much all the games when the offense was shut out, and the wins all the games where the offense went gangbusters.

I'm waiting for someone to notice ARod's batting average in games where his team is no-hit is .000. Or that he's never hit a home run when his team was shutout. What an unclutch douche!

Or that he's never hit a home run when his team was shutout. What an unclutch douche!

If I listened to sports talk radio, I'd totally call in with that, and see if I could get them to bite...

It really broke new stupid barriers, as apparently it didn't occur to them that maybe the reason they won those games was because ARod hit .350 with 24 homers in them. You mean teams win games when their players have big days and lose when they don't? Genius!

A couple years ago, we used to hear how Jimmy Rollins got the Phils going, how they won 68% of the games in which he scored a run. It was funny to see people's reaction when I informed then that the Phils had won 74% of the game in which Pedro Feliz scored. (Numbers slightly made up but very close to the actuals).

Watching Roy pitch is seeing a guy at the peak of his craft. He's a d*mn surgeon out there.

Kershaw is electric.

Lee is just frustrating. As a fan you get really annoyed with your team about not being to hit THAT guy. Your reaction is typically, "C'mon, you gotta be kidding me?!"

Roy, you just sigh and shrug.

Kershaw, you pause and go, "Daaayyyyuuummm".

So I am leaning Kershaw. I like to be impressed when I am at the ballpark.