Would CC get your vote?

[TheNamelessPoet]

His value isn't split... he's 15-8 this year. What's there to split? His season didn't restart when he went to Milwaukee....

ironicly if it did... he would be guarenteed the Cy Young lol

Nothing. He's 15-8. Cliff Lee gets the AL Cy and Brandon Webb gets the NL Cy.

I still have a little faith in Halliday... if he gets within 1 win of Lee I thik they might give it to him. they both have 4 starts left MAYBE 5

Pretty simple....would you give CC Sabathia a vote for either, or both, of these awards?

Cy Young no but Honestly, MVP (which it never would) I would have to give it to Him. Without him MIL does not make the playoffs.

[etothep]

ironicly if it did... he would be guarenteed the Cy Young lol


I still have a little faith in Halliday... if he gets within 1 win of Lee I thik they might give it to him. they both have 4 starts left MAYBE 5



Cy Young no but Honestly, MVP (which it never would) I would have to give it to Him. Without him MIL does not make the playoffs.

Was waiting for someone else to say what I was thinking. I think he should have a better shot at MVP than the Cy. But I know that there's no way in hell the writers would give the Cy to one pitcher & the MVP to a different one.

[TheNamelessPoet]

can se mention linsecum from the giants??? He wont get it but he should DEFINATLY get some votes. The the problem is that CC is going to lose some votes BECAUSE he wasnt in the NL all year. That bumps webb's votes up since linsecom wont be anywhere near him with wins.

[HoustonGM]

Was waiting for someone else to say what I was thinking. I think he should have a better shot at MVP than the Cy. But I know that there's no way in hell the writers would give the Cy to one pitcher & the MVP to a different one.

That's because that makes absolutely no sense. How can a pitcher be the most valuable player, but not the best pitcher? When it comes to awards, and who's "best", it seems to me that it should be based on value, whether or not the award specifically mentions "value" in its name or not. "Most value" and "best" are interchangable terms...to me, at least.

C.C. deserves some consideration for Cy Young, although I wouldn't give it to him. He shouldn't get any consideration for the MVP award. He played half a season in the NL. In order to accumulate more value, especially as a starting pitcher, in half a season, than all the other great players that played the full season in that league, a pitcher would have to be RIDICULOUSLY awesome....more ridiculous than C.C.'s been (and he's been pretty ridiculous).

The "without him, Milwaukee doesn't make the playoffs" line doesn't work for me. Milwaukee was 4 games out of 1st, and half a game out of the Wild Card, before the trade. Now, they are 4.5 games out of first, and 5.5 ahead in the Wild Card. It was EXTREMELY possible that they would've been able to make the playoffs without him. He was a boost, no doubt, but to see they wouldn't have any shot of making the playoffs without him is just flatout wrong. Furthermore, that line of thinking ignores the entire first half of the season.

His value isn't split... he's 15-8 this year. What's there to split? His season didn't restart when he went to Milwaukee....

The NL Cy Young award is for the National League. C.C. has pitched half the season in the American League, and half in the National League. His value is split between the two leagues.

[etothep]

The NL Cy Young award is for the National League. C.C. has pitched half the season in the American League, and half in the National League. His value is split between the two leagues.

One would think that this (only having your NL stats count when traded from an AL team to an NL team) would have changed with the advent of interleague play. But I suppose that would really ruffle the purist's feathers.

[HoustonGM]

One would think that this (only having your NL stats count when traded from an AL team to an NL team) would have changed with the advent of interleague play. But I suppose that would really ruffle the purist's feathers.

Even with interleague play, in terms of an NL award, the only stats that should count towards it are stats earned in NL games...include games on an AL team vs. the NL, fine, which adds 3 starts to C.C.'s "NL stats."

[etothep]

That's because that makes absolutely no sense. How can a pitcher be the most valuable player, but not the best pitcher? When it comes to awards, and who's "best", it seems to me that it should be based on value, whether or not the award specifically mentions "value" in its name or not. "Most value" and "best" are interchangable terms...to me, at least.

Should be based on value? Maybe if they change the Cy Young to Most Valuable Pitcher then we can have that argument I suppose. Also, I believe you have been on record as stating that the MVP should be the player who contributes the most value to his team:

Even if it turns out that he was the player that provided the most value to his team?

(in response to a statement by metsguy that he wouldn't like seeing Cliff Lee being named the AL MVP)


Just trying to figure out your way of seeing things is all.

[HoustonGM]

Should be based on value? Maybe if they change the Cy Young to Most Valuable Pitcher then we can have that argument I suppose.

What is the difference between the "best pitcher" and the "most valuable pitcher"? To me, the best player is the player who gave the most value.

Also, I believe you have been on record as stating that the MVP should be the player who contributes the most value to his team:

(in response to a statement by metsguy that he wouldn't like seeing Cliff Lee being named the AL MVP)

Yes...the MVP should be the player who contributes the most value to his team...

[etothep]

What is the difference between the "best pitcher" and the "most valuable pitcher"? To me, the best player is the player who gave the most value.

Haha, we both know that most, if not all voters, see gaping differences between best pitcher & most valuable pitcher. Lincecum is far better than he is valuable (due to the fact that adding his value on a terrible team to make them a very bad team isn't seen as being as valuable as adding webbs value to a mediocre team to turn them into a good team). For instance, the Giants would be rated a 1 or a 1.5 on team ability w/o lincecum, but are now rated, what, a 3 maybe? However, without Webb, the Dbacks would be seen as around 4.5, but with his addition they're probably viewed more as a 6.5. (based on a 1-10 scale, with 1 being the worst team in the bigs, & 10 being the best)

Though I know you'll hate the idea of more objectivity being taken into account for postseason awards.


I'm curious, are you against giving the Cy Young to a reliever then as well since they don't contribute to their team as much as starters do?

Yes...the MVP should be the player who contributes the most value to his team...

Here's where qualitative data needs to be taken into account along with the quantitative data. Sure, he hasn't pitched as much as Webb, but his addition to the Brewers (who had a very similar makeup to last year's team that completely fell apart in the 2nd half), was absolutely crucial to their confidence, especially when you also take into account his postseason experience when being added to this young squad. To ignore qualitative data is to limit the scope of the study.

[HoustonGM]

Haha, we both know that most, if not all voters, see gaping differences between best pitcher & most valuable pitcher.

I know. I've been talking about how I'd vote and how I think it should be done. I know very well that's not how it will be done.

Lincecum is far better than he is valuable (due to the fact that adding his value on a terrible team to make them a very bad team isn't seen as being as valuable as adding webbs value to a mediocre team to turn them into a good team). For instance, the Giants would be rated a 1 or a 1.5 on team ability w/o lincecum, but are now rated, what, a 3 maybe? However, without Webb, the Dbacks would be seen as around 4.5, but with his addition they're probably viewed more as a 6.5. (based on a 1-10 scale, with 1 being the worst team in the bigs, & 10 being the best)

So they're both worth around 2 points on this 1-10 scale, which makes them, equally valuable. How good the team is should have no bearing on how valuable one individual player is. Two identical players, one on a bad team and one on a good team, are equally valuable to their teams. The teammates a player has does not (or rather, should not) affect his individual value.

Though I know you'll hate the idea of more objectivity being taken into account for postseason awards.

I'm curious, are you against giving the Cy Young to a reliever then as well since they don't contribute to their team as much as starters do?

As I said in the thread on this issue, I'd give the Cy Young to a reliever...as long as he was actually the most valuable pitcher in the league. It's possible for a reliever to contribute more than a starter. It's possible for the best reliever in the league to have contributed more than the best starter, but very rare.

Here's where qualitative data needs to be taken into account along with the quantitative data. Sure, he hasn't pitched as much as Webb, but his addition to the Brewers (who had a very similar makeup to last year's team that completely fell apart in the 2nd half), was absolutely crucial to their confidence, especially when you also take into account his postseason experience when being added to this young squad. To ignore qualitative data is to limit the scope of the study.

I don't think "confidence giving" and "experience" has as much value as 80+ innings of high-quality pitching. Sure, it can bump up Sabathia some, but I don't think enough to overcome the top pitchers that spent the entire season in the NL.




As I stated above, as of right now, my Cy Young vote would go to Tim Lincecum. Webb's the likely winner, barring a collapse and Lincecum earning wins in the rest of his starts.


For another "take", the NL's VORP leaders among pitchers:

Tim Lincecum 62.7
Johan Santana 54.3
Ryan Dempster 48.1
Cole Hamels 48.0
Jake Peavy 47.9
Dan Haren 47.4
Ben Sheets 46.6
Chad Billingsley 45.3
Brandon Webb 44.2
C.C. Sabathia 38.8

That does illustrate how great Sabathia's been - he's accumulated more value (according to VORP) than all but 9 other pitchers, despite roughly 15 games less than pitchers that have pitched the entire year. VORP for pitchers is based off how many runs the pitcher has prevented over replacement level. As you can see, Webb is #9 in the league, and he's probably the runaway Cy favorite because of the mighty "Win". Webb's one of my favorite pitchers, but I have to admit, once you look past wins, he's in a cluster of the top pitchers this year, but isn't the clear-cut favorite, as he's likely to be in the voting. Lincecum is a step ahead of the pack by nearly any measure.

ERA+, Lincecum leads with 177, a full 25 points ahead of second place, in which Johan Santana and Ryan Dempster are tied. He has 30+ more strikeouts than the next highest. He's allowing the second fewest hits per 9 innings (7.24, just a tad behind Dempster with 7.23). He's got the highest winning percentage at .833. Second place is Volquez at 7.62. Lincecum's season has been filthy, but obscure because the Giants aren't good. Lincecum has a combined 12 losses and no-decisions. In those starts, he has a 3.32 ERA. Give him a solid offense behind him, and he very well could have 20 wins already. Because his team sucks, he isn't going to get the consideration he deserves.

[Wassit3]

Is he? I think it's damn close, but not clear cut, and also, the award is for the best pitcher in a league in a season, not the best pitcher. Sometimes, better pitchers have worse years than worse pitchers.

Anyway, C.C. has obviously been the best on a per-inning and per-game basis. That's indisputable. However, he'll end up with 16 starts in the NL, about half as much as starters that spent the full year in the NL. I can't see giving the Cy to a pitcher that spent half the year in the league. It's tough, because C.C. is probably going to end up as the best pitcher in the league overall, but the awards go one to each league, and C.C.'s value was split, which sucks, but that's the way it is.

It's between Lincecum, Santana, and Webb, and I'm leaning Lincecum more and more.

they could just give both cy's to CC

[YEAH DAAAAWG]

Now that'd be something, but I'd bet there's probably some type of rule that would prevent it.

[HoustonGM]

I don't know if there's any rule specifically regarding that, and I'm pretty sure wassit was joking around, but if that happened, that'd be horrible, because C.C.'s AL stats are nothing compared to the top contenders for the AL Cy.

[YEAH DAAAAWG]

I know. I wasn't regarding it as a feasible or likely scenario.

[RedsoxRockies]

Lincecum should get it. he leads the NL in 2 of the triple crown categories.