AL Cy Young

even more laughable. Then this becomes very easy, no voting needs to be done, award to the pitcher at the end of each year that has the most wins, simple.

 

You asked if it should be an MVP type award or given to the best pitcher.

Well, it's named for the best pitcher.

And why is he considered the best pitcher? Because he has/had the most wins.

 

But that's the wrong way to determine who is the best pitcher.

 

You're a simpleton if you think the most wins means you're the best pitcher. It's a waste of time even debating this with you if that's what you believe. Didn't Cy Young also have the most losses?

 

Too many people think that the Cy Young Award vote isn't a vote but rather a test question for which there is a correct answer, and if someone doesn't select the correct answer they are wrong.

 

The history of the award indicates that ALL these criteria, whatever their validity, have been used to determine the winners at some point, ERA, wins, strikeouts, the newer metrics (people sensed these even if they hadn't quantified them back in the day, WHIP is a pretty basic idea), you name it. Bob Welch got a Cy Young over Clemens because he had more wins even though Clemens' other stats were superior.
In fact, 1968 is the perfect example. Juan Marichal had more wins than Bob Gibson, but Gibson's other stats were superior, so he got the award in the National League. Luis Tiant had better stats than Denny McLain in all but one category, but McLain got the AL Cy for his 31 wins.
Awards are determined by voting, and the voters have the same arguments, even inside themselves, as you do.

 

If you aren't wrong, then tell us why wins should determine the Cy Young Award winner, rather than overall performance.

I believe that overall performance should determine it. I believe that ERA, WHIP, and peripheral numbers like SO/BB, IP, CG, and so forth are more illustrative of a pitcher's performance, isolated from factors he can't control - like his team's offensive performance. I recognize that defense plays a role in WHIP and ERA, in particular, but I believe that the effect of defense is minimal on the pitcher's performance compared to effect of run support, not to mention the strength of the bullpen backing him, on his win-loss record.

 

Someone tell me why wins should matter.

 

I'm postin on my phone & can't figure out how to quote and post.

But JC, if we're talking about an award named for Cy Young, then wins has to be a significant factor.

If you had a Babe Ruth award and a Ty Cobb award, you' probably have different winners.

 

the definition of the Cy Young award is that is it is given to the BEST PITCHER for that year, not the pitcher that benefited from the best offense. Nowhere does it say wins.

I take it Jamie Moyer was a better pitcher than Pedro Martinez because he had more wins.

 

He was a better pitcher than Pedro the years Pedro was hurt and Moyer wasn't. Wins mean something, just not everything.

 

What about the year Cy Young went 18-19 with a 1.82 ERA?

Did he have a bad year?