Cliff Lee- Your AL Cy Young winner

you got me.

 

The Indians - one win from the AL pennant last year - had last year's Cy Young winner and this year's Cy Young winner on their roster and were out of contention by mid-May. Only in Cleveland.

 

Aramis Ramírez winning the 2008 NL Hank Aaron Award was worse than either of the above.

 

What about Palmeiro winning a Gold Glove when he was the DH the entire season?

 

Yes, but the players deserve the blame for that one.

 

Managers and coaches actually vote for the gold gloves.

 

True. I deserve the blame for that one.

 

Considering 1) how shitty Cleveland was this year, PARTICULARLY after trading C.C. Sabathia, 2) how offense-laden the A.L. is and 3) how sterling Lee's numbers were pitching for a piss poor team, Roy Halladay shouldn't have gotten a single first-place vote for Cy Young.

 

Hey, he played 28 games.

 

1) The quality of the rest of the pitching staff should have little impact on the Cy Young vote, Toronto had one of if not the worst offence in baseball for most of the league, had by far the worst batting avg. in the league when hitting with runners in scoring position. The first half TOs pitching carried them, in the second half they lost two of those pitchers to injury and they fell completely otu of the race at that point. 2)Halladay pitches in the same league. 3) Halladay didn't have that much better a team in front of him (see 1)). Halladay's run support was not much better, plus his numbers are not that far off of Lee's, some critical ones were even better:
Halladay -- 20-11, 9CG, 2SO, 18 HR, 39 BB, 206K, 2.78 ERA, 1.053 WHIP
Lee -- 22-3, 4CG, 2SO, 12 HR, 34 BB, 170K, 2.54 ERA, 1.110WHIP

yes Lee deserved the Cy, but I do not think it is completely preposturous that Halladay got a few first place votes.

 

As I wrote in my NL Cy Young analysis, I look at the Big Three factors for determining a Cy Young winner, and they aren't the big three you'd think...

Winning percentage (After all, that's the name of the game.) Lee .815, Halladay .645. A big edge to Lee.
ERA (Since the former is dependent on bullpen and run support, look at the pitchers real job, which is preventing runs). Lee 2.54, Halladay 2.78. Edge to Lee again.
Opponents OBP (OK, the true, most basic test of how effectively a pitcher pitches is how often he gets out the batter that's in front of him. WHIP also works): Halladay .276, Lee .285. Edge to Halladay.

Lee is the obviously the guy. But I can see how someone who values, say, complete games or strikeouts, might pick Halladay by a nose. I wouldn't, but it's a defensible position, I suppose.

 

I consider winning percentage an overrated stat for a pitcher, much like it is with goalies in hockey. He still needs offensive and defensive help in a win. when you have two pitchers with sub 3.00 ERAs and that big a differential in winning percentage to me that's almost a case in point. And to me that was Cliff Lee's biggest advantage in the stats.
Again not trying to take anything away from the southpaw, just coming to Halladay's defence as some people acted as though it was completely unconscionable that anyone could have given Halladay the nod with a first place vote. They both had ridiculous seasons.