CC won the Cy Young, and rightfully so. He was a work-horse and was dominant down the stretch in September. But most importantly, these votes are cast at the end of the season, so any post-season performances would not cloud the writers' judgments, because, let's face it, add in the post-season and Beckett wins the award unanimously. But the writers got this one right.
Here are the voting results:
C.C. Sabathia, Indians - 19 firsts, 8 seconds - 119 points
Josh Beckett, Red Sox - 8 firsts, 14 seconds, 4 thirds - 86 points
John Lackey, LA Angels - 1 first, 5 seconds, 16 thirds - 36 points
Fausto Carmona, Indians - 1 second, 4 thirds - 7 points
1 third place vote each for: Eric Bedard, Orioles; Roy Halladay, Blue Jays; Johan Santana, Twins; & Justin Verlander, Tigers.
Here's what I don't like in the voting process: 2 writers from each AL city choose a 1st, 2nd & 3rd place pitcher for the Cy and because of the limited picks, some of these writers cannot resist being true to the guy they watched on the most regular basis. I'm guessing that there was a sentimental writer from Baltimore, Toronto, Minnesota & Detroit who choose their team's ace for their 3rd place vote, whereas if they were to pick more places (for example, 1st thru 8th), then they could vote for their guy a little lower, where they belong. Don't get me wrong, Bedard, Halladay, Santana & Verlander had great seasons and are all great pitchers, but to put any one of these 3 ahead of the seasons that Sabathia, Beckett, Lackey or Carmona had is just ridiculous. You'll note that Sabathia didn't show up once 1 ballot and Beckett didn't show up on 2 ballots - I mean, WOW. They were clearly the best two pitchers in the AL and somehow, a few of these "experts" failed to put them on their ballot. The writer out there who didn't vote for Sabathia must be stunned that CC won it. And that's just absurd.
My gripe is that 28 writers have a lot of power in determining a prestigious award, and these writers are proven to be a fickle bunch - while they got this year's award correct, they've made their mistakes in the past (see below). I'd much prefer there be more voters - managers, players, front office folk - included with the writers, and no voter can vote for a member of their organization (or the organization they cover). So it would be impossible to win unanimously with that stipulation, but at least the voting couldn't be all about "your guy" winning. Because let's not forget a few years back, pitcher A beat out pitcher B with these stats, basically because the writers sometimes value win totals & innings pitched a little too much and they didn't like pitcher B's personality:
Pitcher A: 23-5, 2.75 ERA, 229.1 IP, 182 K, 1.13 WHIP, 24 HR Allowed, 1 CG
Pitcher B: 20-4, 2.26 ERA, 199.1 IP, 239 K, 0.92 WHIP, 13 HR Allowed, 2 CG
In 2002, Barry Zito somehow won the Cy Young award over Pedro Martinez. Other than 3 more wins (the single most overrated stat in baseball) and 30 more innings on the hill, what did Zito do to deserve this award over Pedro?
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
I think it's funny that you're ticked that Zito won the Cy Young over Pedro in 2002 because of Innings Pitched and I totally think that's the MAIN reason why CC won it this year and you're saying the writers got it right. The rest of the numbers are pretty comparable except for IP. Is there something else you're seeing that I'm not?
CC: 19-7, 3.21 ERA, 241.0 IP, 209 K, 1.14 WHIP, 20 HR Allowed, 4 CG
Beckett: 20-7, 3.27 ERA, 200.2 IP, 194 K, 1.14 WHIP, 17 HR Allowed, 0 CG
Another stat that was considered for this year's award voting was Quality Starts - CC's 25 to Beckett's 20. Besides, Beckett & CC's numbers are right on par, so something like CC throwing 40 more innings can be the main reason. But when you look at the Zito/Pedro comparison, Pedro was significantly better in ERA, K, HR Allowed & WHIP, whereas CC/Beckett are relatively close in all said stats.
CC deserved it, because he had JO JO Borowski closing and Beckett had Papaelbon...that has to be a 3 win swing no? I'm too lazy to try and figure it out...but also probably a good reason why CC was forced to throw 4 CG....I'd give the nod to CC for the Cy as well, but I mean no way would I say he's the better pitcher...weird
I think that answers the "what's the point?" question, although the cheerleading lobby might feel differently. But the crux of the piece wasn't to denigrate the after-school activity (although, frankly, I'm fine with calling it a sport even if there aren't winners or losers), it was to investigate whether "... cheerleading has wandered too far from its original purpose, firing up crowds at football games."
diy tool
buy dvd
buy electronics products online
I think that answers the "what's the point?" question, although the cheerleading lobby might feel differently. But the crux of the piece wasn't to denigrate the after-school activity (although, frankly, I'm fine with calling it a ladies flying jacket / / aviator jackets for men / / leather aviator jackets / / military bomber jacket / / air force leather jacket / / kids leather coats / / boys designer jackets / / kids designer jackets / /