NL Cy (with NL MVP threadjack)

[outofplace]

Re: NL Cy Young -- refresh the debate

So, what do you do with the part of his season when he was with the Indians? Santana and Sabathia were both much better in the second half, so do you allow Sabathia the advantage of tossing out his slow start?

By the way, Sabathia entered today's game with a 2.80 ERA on the season. Still very good, but not as low as his numbers with the Brewers only.

I'm not saying he should win. But if anyone's going to give a voter pause based on three months, this would be one of those occasions. He will finish in the top three.

Understood. I was just raising a question about basing things only on Sabathia's three months with the Brewers.

 

[qtlaw]

Re: NL Cy Young -- refresh the debate

Lincecum. The brilliance was there all season long. 18-5 and he left with 5 leads that were wasted. (I know Johan got jobbed out of quite a few though).
He was the more dominant. While Johan was studly at the end; ultimately the Mets are right there with the Giants on Mon. night, watching, so its not like the Mets are going for the World Championship.

Lincecum should have started the All-Star game and hopefully he gets the Cy Young.

 

[Oz]

Re: NL Cy Young -- refresh the debate

Lincecum was dominant from his first start to his last. Can't ask for anything more. He was the best pitcher all year, unlike Santana; and he was there all year, unlike Sabathia. He's the winner, regardless of how good the other two were down the stretch.

"The stretch" being a full three months for Sabathia. That's more than a stretch.

 

[outofplace]

Re: NL Cy Young -- refresh the debate

Lincecum was dominant from his first start to his last. Can't ask for anything more. He was the best pitcher all year, unlike Santana; and he was there all year, unlike Sabathia. He's the winner, regardless of how good the other two were down the stretch.

He just happened to mix in his weaker starts all season. The overall numbers are very similar to Santana's, as you pointed out yourself.

 

[buckweaver]

Re: NL Cy Young -- refresh the debate

Lincecum was dominant from his first start to his last. Can't ask for anything more. He was the best pitcher all year, unlike Santana; and he was there all year, unlike Sabathia. He's the winner, regardless of how good the other two were down the stretch.

"The stretch" being a full three months for Sabathia. That's more than a stretch.

And a big fat 0-0, 0.00, before then.

I'll give Sabathia third place over Webb, although I'm a little iffy on that, too.

What Sabathia did will be remembered in Milwaukee. Just like what Randy Johnson did in '98 might be remembered in Houston. It's not Cy Young-worthy. ... I'll concede that it'll be remembered more if the Brewers somehow win the pennant. But he was a rental (assuming he doesn't re-sign this fall.) It was three months of greatness -- and it wasn't even singular greatness, because Santana was every bit as good for those three months.

Comes down to Lincecum vs. Santana, and I'm OK with either one winning it. Santana's the best pitcher in the league; Lincecum was the better pitcher this year, IMO. Only way Sabathia is in the picture, I think, is if there's no other dominant candidates ... like only Gooden was in '84, for Sutcliffe. That's simply not the case this year.

 

[friend of a friend]

Re: NL Cy Young -- refresh the debate

I'm with Buckdub.

 

[Bubbler]

Re: NL Cy Young -- refresh the debate

I understand that logic for Cy Young, but Sabathia has to be in the conversation for MVP.

The biggest thing for me, was he was outstanding above and beyond the call of what is considered normal in today's game. Seven complete games to lead the NL in just 17 starts! Historically, if you project 35 starts, he's at a 1960s or 1970s level of CG's, remarkable for this era. The last CG on three day's rest with a playoff spot on the line.

He had a 1.65 ERA in a Brewers uniform and an 11-2 record. He was undeniably the difference and the lone rock on a Brewers team that needed every last ounce of what he could offer to get to the playoffs.

On a more subjective scale, it was the ballsiest performance in Brewers history.

 

[zeke12]

Re: NL Cy Young -- refresh the debate

With Santana and Lincecum, it's really, really close, as others have gone over.

So I ask my tiebreaker question: If your team could have either one to start a one-game playoff on Tuesday with the season on the line, who do you take? That's your Cy Young.

 

[Bubbler]

Re: NL Cy Young -- refresh the debate

Bob Howry?

 

[pallister]

Re: NL Cy Young -- refresh the debate

because Santana was every bit as good for those three months.

No.

 

[Bruce Leroy]

Re: NL Cy Young -- refresh the debate

Bob Howry?

That almost made my ears bleed. I now I read it instead of hearing it, but that's how severe BH's failure has become. Keeping him in the bullpen is like keeping a one-legged kid on the team to come pinch-kick in a game of kickball.

 

[buckweaver]

Re: NL Cy Young -- refresh the debate

With Santana and Lincecum, it's really, really close, as others have gone over.

So I ask my tiebreaker question: If your team could have either one to start a one-game playoff on Tuesday with the season on the line, who do you take? That's your Cy Young.

I hate to say it, because I've already made Lincecum's case about a dozen times this month and I truly do feel he should win ...

But the answer to that question is Ol' Blood and Guts Santana. He's the best pitcher in the game.

And I say that full well knowing that Brewers fans wouldn't lose a wink of sleep picking Sabathia for that game. And they'd be right, too.

 

[Bubbler]

Re: NL Cy Young -- refresh the debate

Lincecum was dominant from his first start to his last. Can't ask for anything more. He was the best pitcher all year, unlike Santana; and he was there all year, unlike Sabathia. He's the winner, regardless of how good the other two were down the stretch.

"The stretch" being a full three months for Sabathia. That's more than a stretch.

And a big fat 0-0, 0.00, before then.

I'll give Sabathia third place over Webb, although I'm a little iffy on that, too.

What Sabathia did will be remembered in Milwaukee. Just like what Randy Johnson did in '98 might be remembered in Houston. It's not Cy Young-worthy. ... I'll concede that it'll be remembered more if the Brewers somehow win the pennant. But he was a rental (assuming he doesn't re-sign this fall.) It was three months of greatness -- and it wasn't even singular greatness, because Santana was every bit as good for those three months.

Comes down to Lincecum vs. Santana, and I'm OK with either one winning it. Santana's the best pitcher in the league; Lincecum was the better pitcher this year, IMO. Only way Sabathia is in the picture, I think, is if there's no other dominant candidates ... like only Gooden was in '84, for Sutcliffe. That's simply not the case this year.

Having looked up Randy Johnson '98, it's a fair comparison except for one thing ... Johnson was traded to Houston nearly a month after Sabathia was dealt to Milwaukee. Johnson had 11 starts for the Astros, Sabathia 17 for the Brewers.

The Sutcliffe trade in '84 is a more comparable time comparison, though Sutcliffe got three more starts for the Cubs than Sabathia did this season.

 

[buckweaver]

Re: NL Cy Young -- refresh the debate

Oh, it's not an exact comparison, I know. And Sabathia meant a ****pot more to the Brewers than Johnson ever did to the Astros.

Sutcliffe IS a valid comparison. The difference is, Gooden wasn't a very dominant rival (at that time, anyway; we know now that he was much more dominating than we realized in '84), and the fact that Sutcliffe was only one win off his main competitor's total (16 vs. 17) made it quite clear that Sutcliffe was a viable contender for a full-season award.

Obviously, wins aren't a be-all, end-all. Flawed stat and all that. But Sabathia's got 11 wins. Webb, the league leader, has TWICE AS MANY MORE. Lincecum and Santana have a good month's worth more.

That's a huge, huge factor to overcome. And the fact that both Lincecum and Santana are fully deserving of the award, over the course of the entire year, makes Sabathia's case a whole lot different than Sutcliffe's. I really don't see how anyone in their right minds can vote for C.C., no matter how dominant he was in those 17 starts. He's got half the wins, half the innings pitched, half the everything ... except CGs and SHO, of course. Hell, he doesn't even qualify for the ERA title. He doesn't qualify for anything, because he didn't pitch long enough.

No way Sabathia wins it. Third place, sure.
No way he wins.

 

[outofplace]

Re: NL Cy Young -- refresh the debate

I understand that logic for Cy Young, but Sabathia has to be in the conversation for MVP.

The biggest thing for me, was he was outstanding above and beyond the call of what is considered normal in today's game. Seven complete games to lead the NL in just 17 starts! Historically, if you project 35 starts, he's at a 1960s or 1970s level of CG's, remarkable for this era. The last CG on three day's rest with a playoff spot on the line.

He had a 1.65 ERA in a Brewers uniform and an 11-2 record. He was undeniably the difference and the lone rock on a Brewers team that needed every last ounce of what he could offer to get to the playoffs.

On a more subjective scale, it was the ballsiest performance in Brewers history.

No player who only took part in 17 games for his team should win an MVP award, no matter how great he was those days.

And projecting Sabathia out to 35 starts ignores the problem I brought up earlier -- he did make 35 starts this year. He went 17-10 in those 35 starts with a 2.70 ERA. It's not like he only pitched half the season. Looking only at his National League numbers makes him look better because he had that lousy start.

Obviously, you can only count his NL stats for NL awards, but it is unfair to project those numbers out to a full season if you are going to do so. That is the negative on Sabathia for both awards, the only negative -- the relatively small number of starts he made for the Brewers.

 

[zeke12]

Re: NL Cy Young -- refresh the debate

With Santana and Lincecum, it's really, really close, as others have gone over.

So I ask my tiebreaker question: If your team could have either one to start a one-game playoff on Tuesday with the season on the line, who do you take? That's your Cy Young.

I hate to say it, because I've already made Lincecum's case about a dozen times this month and I truly do feel he should win ...

But the answer to that question is Ol' Blood and Guts Santana. He's the best pitcher in the game.

And I say that full well knowing that Brewers fans wouldn't lose a wink of sleep picking Sabathia for that game. And they'd be right, too.

Pretty much what I came up with, too.

 

[BB Bobcat]

Re: NL Cy Young -- refresh the debate

Now that all of the data is in...

It's Santana or Lincecum. You can make a very compelling case for either one and I would not dispute either. Their significant stats were essentially the same...

Opponents on-base percentage (how often do you get the batter out): Santana .286; Lincecum .297
ERA (how many runs do you give up): Santana 2.53; Lincecum 2.62. (I believe these first two are a tie because of the difference in defense behind the pitchers.)
Wins: Santana 16 (left leading 23 times); Lincecum 18 (Left leading 23 times).
Innings: Santana 234; Lincecum 227.

All other stats, I think, are just window dressing compared with these big ones. Forced to break a tie, though, I looked at the window dressing, and one number stood out...

Strikeouts per nine: Lincecum 10.5; Santana 7.9.

Granted, a strikeout is often just good as a groundout, and in some cases having so many strikeouts hurt Lincecum's pitch-count. However, if you are looking for something to separate the two, it certainly tells you which one hitters probably hated to face.

Another person may use as his tie-breaker the fact that Santana pitched so well down the stretch for a contender. I couldn't argue with that either. Hence, the fact that I think there is no wrong answer.

As for the question about who you'd start in a one-game playoff, that's not a fair comparison. Obviously you'd pick the guy with more experience, but that's not what the Cy Young is. It has nothing to do with track record or even future potential. It is who pitched the best in 2008.

I would vote Webb third.

Sabathia? No on the Cy Young, but I'm all for him getting some third or fourth place votes in the MVP. Although if you are opening that can of worms, Manny is probably ahead of him.

 

[outofplace]

Re: NL Cy Young -- refresh the debate

Now that all of the data is in...

It's Santana or Lincecum. You can make a very compelling case for either one and I would not dispute either. Their significant stats were essentially the same...

Opponents on-base percentage (how often do you get the batter out): Santana .286; Lincecum .297
ERA (how many runs do you give up): Santana 2.53; Lincecum 2.62. (I believe these first two are a tie because of the difference in defense behind the pitchers.)
Wins: Santana 16 (left leading 23 times); Lincecum 18 (Left leading 23 times).
Innings: Santana 234; Lincecum 227.

All other stats, I think, are just window dressing compared with these big ones. Forced to break a tie, though, I looked at the window dressing, and one number stood out...

Strikeouts per nine: Lincecum 10.5; Santana 7.9.

Granted, a strikeout is often just good as a groundout, and in some cases having so many strikeouts hurt Lincecum's pitch-count. However, if you are looking for something to separate the two, it certainly tells you which one hitters probably hated to face.

Another person may use as his tie-breaker the fact that Santana pitched so well down the stretch for a contender. I couldn't argue with that either. Hence, the fact that I think there is no wrong answer.

As for the question about who you'd start in a one-game playoff, that's not a fair comparison. Obviously you'd pick the guy with more experience, but that's not what the Cy Young is. It has nothing to do with track record or even future potential. It is who pitched the best in 2008.

I would vote Webb third.

Sabathia? No on the Cy Young, but I'm all for him getting some third or fourth place votes in the MVP. Although if you are opening that can of worms, Manny is probably ahead of him.

Manny Ramirez absolutely belongs ahead of Sabathia for NL MVP, though neither should win it. Sabathia pitched 17 games for the Brewers. Ramirez was not with the Dodgers as long, but he did play in 53 games for them and he was absolutely dominant. He batted .396 with a .489 on-base percentage and .753 slugging percentage, 17 home runs and 53 RBI.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

Re: NL Cy Young -- refresh the debate

Mets choke cost Santana, I'm afraid.

 

[qtlaw]

Re: NL Cy Young -- refresh the debate

Santana pitching GM 1? I think he's had at least three chances and while pitching fairly well, has only come up with one win. The horse in game 1 is the rarest commodity there is. (Remember Livan?)