Lincecum wins NL Cy Young Award

No surprise really.



NEW YORK -- Tim Lincecum is the National League Cy Young Award winner, taking home pitching's highest honor in his second major league season.

The slender kid with the whirling windup on Tuesday joined Mike McCormick (1967) as the only San Francisco Giants pitchers to win a Cy Young.

Lincecum received 23 of 32 first-place votes and 137 points in balloting by the Baseball Writers' Association of America. Brandon Webb of the Arizona Diamondbacks got four first-place votes and finished second with 73 points.

Yay! The BBWAA voted correctly! I was afraid he would not win it

Good choice.

Full results can be found here.

Code:

---

Name                1st        2nd        3rd        Tot.
Lincecum        23        7        1        137
Webb                4        15        8        73
Santana                4        8        11        55
Lidge                0        1        7        10
Sabathia        1        1        1        9
Dempster                        4        4

---

It would've been nice if Santana rightfully placed 2nd, but that Webb placed 2nd just goes to show that we still have a lot of work to due in eliminating the "Wins = How you pitched" mentatilty, but it's nice to see that Lincecum (who was really 1a to Santana's 1b, they were ridiculously close) won.

Dempster should not be on there, and Sabathia should have topped Lidge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

Dempster should not be on there, and Sabathia should have topped Lidge

---

That's just nitpicking, considering the difference between Sabathia and Lidge was 1 3rd place vote, and Dempster just got some throwaway 3rd place votes.

I'm pleasantly surprised, however, that Sabathia was placed on just 3 ballots. He's going to get more support for the MVP award than he did for the Cy Young, which I can't comprehend, but this gives me more confidence that he or Manny Ramirez won't steal the MVP award (Ryan Howard, though....).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

That's just nitpicking, considering the difference between Sabathia and Lidge was 1 3rd place vote, and Dempster just got some throwaway 3rd place votes.

I'm pleasantly surprised, however, that Sabathia was placed on just 3 ballots. He's going to get more support for the MVP award than he did for the Cy Young, which I can't comprehend, but this gives me more confidence that he or Manny Ramirez won't steal the MVP award (Ryan Howard, though....).

---

Yes, from the Media's reaction, it did seem Sabathia would get a lot of votes

Sometimes I think teams just say that to drum up support for different candidates and get them some more positive press... especially when they're not in the large media markets. It's good PR. It's like a small-market team saying that they have "4 or 5" guys who should be selected to the All-Star Game each season, even though only one of them even will.

Santana and even Lidge should have topped Webb. Webb should have NO first place votes. But nice to see that the right guy won.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justanewguy

Santana and even Lidge should have topped Webb. Webb should have NO first place votes. But nice to see that the right guy won.

---

Webb was good, yes he melted down, but he was still very good. If he had melted down early in the season and then pitched good, I am sure you might not say that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

Webb was good, yes he melted down, but he was still very good. If he had melted down early in the season and then pitched good, I am sure you might not say that

---

I can't speak for justanewguy, but I'd still say it....because I look at overall performance. And Webb's one of my favorite pitchers. He just simply wasn't close to being the top pitcher in the league. Lincecum and Santana were above him by a good distance. Webb falls into a group of excellent pitchers, but not close to Lincecum and Santana (along with Hamels, Dempster, Volquez, Haren, etc.).

By the way, I'd love to hire the BBWAA's website designer if I ever make my own website. That guy's got some talent! [/sarcasm] Seriously, is the BBWAA so anti-progress that they can't even put together a decent looking website?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I can't speak for justanewguy, but I'd still say it....because I look at overall performance. And Webb's one of my favorite pitchers. He just simply wasn't close to being the top pitcher in the league. Lincecum and Santana were above him by a good distance. Webb falls into a group of excellent pitchers, but not close to Lincecum and Santana (along with Hamels, Dempster, Volquez, Haren, etc.).

By the way, I'd love to hire the BBWAA's website designer if I ever make my own website. That guy's got some talent! [/sarcasm] Seriously, is the BBWAA so anti-progress that they can't even put together a decent looking website?

---

That site is HIDEOUS! And I am not saying that Webb is th best out there, just that Newguy seemed to be underrating him

I've built better lol and thats sad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

That site is HIDEOUS! And I am not saying that Webb is th best out there, just that Newguy seemed to be underrating him

---

All he said was that he didn't deserve any first place votes, and he'd put Santana (definitely) and Lidge (debatable) above him.


As for that website, I'd also like to point out that the title of the page is 2007 NL Cy Young winner. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

Webb was good, yes he melted down, but he was still very good. If he had melted down early in the season and then pitched good, I am sure you might not say that

---

I'd still place the same value on him. Because the numbers would be the same. An early meltdown would have required a Sabathian second half performance to overcome Lincecum.

I would have favored Webb over Lincecum and everyone else until his numbers gradually slipped below that of Lincecum and Santana.

Mainly, I don't understand how Webb managed to get any first place votes at all, with Lincecum and Santana out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

By the way, I'd love to hire the BBWAA's website designer if I ever make my own website. That guy's got some talent! [/sarcasm] Seriously, is the BBWAA so anti-progress that they can't even put together a decent looking website?

---

W... T... F...

That page actually hurt my eyes and burned its image into my retinas. I saw light green in my gmail for about 15 seconds after viewing it.

That color is so 1999.

What's wrong with Webb being in 2nd place? He arguably did better then Santana and by any quantifiable measure did better then Lidge, Dempster, Hamels, etc

wow, what a hideous website. Goat-puke green with no formatting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

What's wrong with Webb being in 2nd place? He arguably did better then Santana...

---

Did he do arguably better? Argue it then. :)

But I'm not buying. Webb's ERA was 1.30 under adjusted league ERA, and Santana's was 1.68 under. Webb's K/BB ratio was about 3/1, Santana's was about 3.5/1. Webb's WHIP was 1.196, Santana's was 1.148. These are very significant differences in the numbers. For good measure, Santana even pitched 6 2/3 more innings in the same number of starts. The only thing Webb did better with was wins. It's not Santana's fault that he had a bad bullpen and sometimes lacked run support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justanewguy

Mainly, I don't understand how Webb managed to get any first place votes at all, with Lincecum and Santana out there.

---

It's not hard to understand. Webb had 22 wins. Simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

What's wrong with Webb being in 2nd place? He arguably did better then Santana

---

Only if you argue without regard for facts.

Quote:

---

and by any quantifiable measure did better then Lidge, Dempster, Hamels, etc.

---

This where Webb "arguably" did better. He was in a group of excellent pitchers clustered around the same level. Webb, Dempster, Haren, Volquez, etc. Excellent, ace pitchers, but not Lincecum/Santana level.



Now, I'm really glad Lincecum won, but, a line in this AP news story baffles me. "Lincecum defied detractors—and the laws of physics"? SAY WHAT? This is a news article, right? Can we please do without the ridiculous exaggeration in our news? Lincecum did not defy the laws of physics, nor did he come particularly close.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

What's wrong with Webb being in 2nd place? He arguably did better then Santana and by any quantifiable measure did better then Lidge, Dempster, Hamels, etc

---

Oh God.... Don't say its because of wins....Santana was better than him, look at almost all other stats

Ok so Dempster isn't the best pitcher compare to the rest but hey at least he made the list :) Needless to say Lincecum deserves it more than the rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

Oh God.... Don't say its because of wins....Santana was better than him, look at almost all other stats

---

Well, I said it's arguable. In ERA and K's Santana wasn't all that much better then Webb anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

Well, I said it's arguable. In ERA and K's Santana wasn't all that much better then Webb anyway.

---

The only argument is wins... Webb's ERA is not quite as good as it looks because of park factors, which makes the ERA difference between the two greater than it appears.

Besides, "Player A's stats are not that much better than Player B's stats" is not a very good argument for Player B being better.

Webb was a lock for the NL Cy Young through most of the season, but the baseball season is 6 months, and he really stunk it up in the last 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

Well, I said it's arguable. In ERA and K's Santana wasn't all that much better then Webb anyway.

---

Would you say that Webb's ERA wasn't all that much better than Ted Lilly's?

Okay, Santana was very slightly better then Webb... but you guys are acting like its a horrible, terrible, unjustifiable thing that Webb goes above Santana (someone said he should be below Lidge... WTF?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Would you say that Webb's ERA wasn't all that much better than Ted Lilly's?

---

3.30
4.09

Thats a BIG difference... nothing like Santana vs. Webb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justanewguy

The only argument is wins... Webb's ERA is not quite as good as it looks because of park factors, which makes the ERA difference between the two greater than it appears.

---

Adjusting for park factors makes Webb's ERA BETTER. Chase Field is a hitter's park.

Webb had a 139 ERA+, 6th in the National League. His raw ERA was 10th in the NL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

3.30
4.09

Thats a BIG difference... nothing like Santana vs. Webb

---

Ha. Man, check your math. The difference between 4.09 and 3.30 is the same as the difference between 3.30 and 2.53.

(Not exactly the same, but it's 0.79 vs. 0.77, which, uh, is nothing.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Adjusting for park factors makes Webb's ERA BETTER. Chase Field is a hitter's park.

Webb had a 139 ERA+, 6th in the National League. His raw ERA was 10th in the NL.

---

You're right. I looked at the adjusted league ERAs backwards. My bad. I knew something didn't seem right, but figured Shea may have somehow been more hitter-friendly than Chase this season. It wasn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

Okay, Santana was very slightly better then Webb... but you guys are acting like its a horrible, terrible, unjustifiable thing that Webb goes above Santana (someone said he should be below Lidge... WTF?)

---

I was the only one who was really acting like it was a crime. I just don't think Webb deserves any first place votes. As HGM pointed out, any voters who had him over Lincecum or Santana were doing so based solely on wins, because there's NOTHING else it could be based on.

As for Lidge, I would put him over Webb on account of a 225 ERA+ and no blown saves. Those numbers are insane. Webb's numbers are simply "very good."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

Okay, Santana was very slightly better then Webb... but you guys are acting like its a horrible, terrible, unjustifiable thing that Webb goes above Santana (someone said he should be below Lidge... WTF?)

---

Santana wasn't very slightly better than Webb. He was much better.

It's not horrible and terrible. It is unjustifiable, using any rational method of justification.

I think I could design a better website with an hour of spare time. I mean that is simple html code that guy is using. I designed better websites in my first week of HTML design class Junior year of high school!

Begrudged congratulations to the Gnats' Lincecum.

If anyone can figure how to post this pic, go for it...I'm still learning my Mac

I am stoked. So happy for Tim. I just hope his numbers don't fall off bad next year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filihok

Begrudged congratulations to the Gnats' Lincecum.

---

Don't be a hater!

I want to see the Giants and their players succeed, in some fashion. It makes the rivalry better when they think they're good and we're better than them, than when they dwell at the bottom of the division and are easy targets of ridicule. Same goes for the Padres, to a lesser extent.

Also, I don't feel very fired up over the idea of the Diamondbacks or Rockies as rivals. So, in my opinion, we need to root for the Giants to become at least respectable, while simultaneously rooting for them to continue being our bitches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justanewguy

Don't be a hater!

I want to see the Giants and their players succeed, in some fashion. It makes the rivalry better when they think they're good and we're better than them, than when they dwell at the bottom of the division and are easy targets of ridicule. Same goes for the Padres, to a lesser extent.

Also, I don't feel very fired up over the idea of the Diamondbacks or Rockies as rivals. So, in my opinion, we need to root for the Giants to become at least respectable, while simultaneously rooting for them to continue being our bitches.

---

I might be wrong, haven't checked, but I believe the season series between the Giants and the Dodgers was split almost even.

I don't think that qualifies the Giants being your bitches. You'd have to win 3/4 of the games to make that valid imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justanewguy

Don't be a hater!

I want to see the Giants and their players succeed, in some fashion. It makes the rivalry better when they think they're good and we're better than them, than when they dwell at the bottom of the division and are easy targets of ridicule. Same goes for the Padres, to a lesser extent.

Also, I don't feel very fired up over the idea of the Diamondbacks or Rockies as rivals. So, in my opinion, we need to root for the Giants to become at least respectable, while simultaneously rooting for them to continue being our bitches.

---

AWESOME lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rogue9

i might be wrong, haven't checked, but i believe the season series between the giants and the dodgers was split almost even.

I don't think that qualifies the giants being your bitches. You'd have to win 3/4 of the games to make that valid imo.

---

Code:

---

2008: La 84-78  sf 72-90
2007: La 82-80 sf 71-91
2006: La 88-74 sf 76-85

---

last 3 years: La 254-232 sf 219-266

bitches

ah yes but athey are not YOUR bitches... they are the leagues... YOUR team has not ben their *****

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rogue9

I might be wrong, haven't checked, but I believe the season series between the Giants and the Dodgers was split almost even.

I don't think that qualifies the Giants being your bitches. You'd have to win 3/4 of the games to make that valid imo.

---

note the bold please. I am not adept at looking **** up or I'd have already posted the numbers. I could be wrong. I'll see if I can find them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

ah yes but athey are not YOUR bitches... they are the leagues... YOUR team has not ben their *****

---

bingo.

found it. It was a dead even split, although, I have a feeling you already knew that. So, though we may have had a worse over all record, we certainly don't qualify as your *****.