The Hardball Times:Not so fast…

ugh. This isn't very good. I don't mean to be real picky or anything, I applaud the attempt to show that Halladay is in fact pitching about as well as Lee has this year and in fact has him beat in a couple of categories (xFIP, PRC, etc). But none of that is used as support, rather neutralizing the run support which is nice and all, but as others mentioned above doesn't account for the defense and the park factors behind Lee and Halladay. And then the author gets into the hypothetical...., the "if's and but's" argument. Pretty weak. I mean a statment like this, "The fact he was pulled for a reliever indicates that Indians’ skipper Eric Wedge felt Lee was done." Ok where are the facts to back this up. Isn't it possible that since Lee has gained more run support he may have a greator lead in the later innings and the need to continue using Lee vs. saving his arm no longer warrants keeping him in the game?

 And if this is an article that is looking at predicting who will likely win the Cy Young rather than who should win it why are we even looking past the surface numbers. Lee's record and lower ERA puts him far enough ahead (at this point) to win it.

Oh and I love the irony, he apparently can't help but slam the BBWA for picking CC last season over Beckett and compares the win record and the ERA. The same argument that he uses (and one of the more valid points in the article) to support Halladay over Lee was one of the main reason's CC won last season, innings pitched.

I'm a little confused by the last comment as well, without checking the numbers I seem to recall Sabathia had mainly better stats than Beckett, and the worry was that Beckett would win simply because of the magic "20".

I think the general idea of this article was just to inspire people to think about who really deserves the Cy, rather than just looking at win-loss record (which is almost worthless) and ERA and making up their minds. It sure seems like a wash right now between the two.

Another subtle point made is that Halladay has had several more good years than Lee and could have a few more Cy's if not for some bad luck (broken leg one year after a great start) . The hope is that the writers consider that and give him an edge over Lee, who is possibly a one-year-wonder.

Plus don't forget Brattain is a shameless Jays fan ;)

Halladay is historically the better pitcher. But I don't think that should nor likely will come in the consideration by the BBWA.

And I think the goal of the article is in the right place (inspiring people to look beyond the W-L record) but I think the arguements for it are all over the place and simply conjecture, which is pretty lazy in my opinion since there are stats that actually back up some of the claims (although I think Lee still comes out ahead at this time = ERA+ 180 to 161, for example, and the FIP, and so forth. 

Hans:

 While your criticisms are valid, it was written along the lines of an open letter to the BBWAA--actually, I did touch on defense to go on record that I am aware that is part of the equation:

"The key part of a pitcher’s job is run prevention, best accomplished through base runner prevention. Some of this obviously involves the defense;" 

...hence I was keeping it pretty straightforward. Just a few examples to look beyond the stats that get checked first by the writers.

It wasn't written for the sabermetric crowd as it were. It was more for the "RBI (or wins) is king" crowd among the voters.

And yes--I am a shameful homer.

Best Regards

John 

I don't mind this comparison, although I think that Lee still has the edge over Halladay going into the last month. What I found funny was the other day when I flipped it to Sportscenter and saw Tim Kurkjian say that Francisco Rodriguez has a chance at the Cy Young award. That was a complete joke in my mind; K-rod might set a saves record, but I don't think he's been more than the fifth/sixth best close in the AL(probably tied w/ Jenks somehow, although if I thought Morrow had closed enough games, I think I'd rank him ahead of both players). Mariano, Nathan, Soria, and Papelbon have all been better than K-rod IMO. K-rod shouldn't even be close to the Cy Young discussion IMO.

What I do think K-rod should be entering into is probably the MVP discussion. He's contributed so many times in pressure packed situations and has come out smelling like a rose time and time again. Although I don't even think I would bring this up at all if the Angels hitting wasn't so bad. But, this is what makes K-rod paticular position vastly important compared to his conterparts; there is little to no room for error because no one on that team can hit right now(except Tex, but we'll leave that for now) and he's been amazingly successful.

This is why Major League awards leave a bad taste in my mouth ; no one can agree on how they should be decided and the opinion of a tiny minority can sway most of the uneducated sorts who will follow like lemming to the ocean. The media is obviously to blame for this...then again, I blame the media for everything else. It makes life easier.