Sabathia Wins AL Cy Young

[Bearcat729]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3108321

Sabathia first Indian since Perry to win Cy Young

Associated Press

NEW YORK -- C.C. Sabathia won the AL Cy Young Award on Tuesday, beating out several worthy contenders by a comfortable margin and becoming the first Cleveland pitcher in 35 years to earn the honor.

The Indians ace received 19 of 28 first-place votes and finished with 119 points in balloting by the Baseball Writers' Association of America. Boston's Josh Beckett was second with eight first-place votes and 86 points, while John Lackey of the Los Angeles Angels got the other first-place vote and came in third.

Sabathia went 19-7 with a 3.21 ERA and 209 strikeouts, pitching a major league-high 241 innings. Beckett (20-7) became the only big league pitcher to win 20 games since 2005, compiling a 3.27 ERA in 200 2-3 innings. Lackey led the AL in ERA at 3.01, going 19-9 and tossing 224 innings.

Voting took place before the postseason, when Sabathia struggled while Beckett pitched the Red Sox to a World Series championship with a string of dominant outings.

Sabathia became the first Indians pitcher to win the award since Hall of Famer Gaylord Perry in 1972.

Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press

[ISiddiqui]

Good pick! I was scared they'd go with Beckett because he got to 20wins... but Sabathia was a better choice.

[Crapshoot]

Yeah - Sabathia was light years better, and Lackey probably had a decent shot at 2nd place.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Yeah - Sabathia was light years better, and Lackey probably had a decent shot at 2nd place.

Light years? What am I missing, as that does seem to be the consensus.

Beckett had more wins, a better H/IP ratio, more Ks/9 innings, less walks/9 innings, lower OPS against. What nerd stats am I missing.

CC did have 40 more innings pitched, which is huge, but this seems like a really close race.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Light years? What am I missing, as that does seem to be the consensus.

Beckett had more wins, a better H/IP ratio, more Ks/9 innings, less walks/9 innings, lower OPS against. What nerd stats am I missing.

CC did have 40 more innings pitched, which is huge, but this seems like a really close race.

Um... Sabathia had less BB/9 and the same WHIP to Beckett. The main difference is the 40 innings, IMO. Similar numbers but 5-6 starts more of it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Um... Sabathia had less BB/9 and the same WHIP to Beckett. The main difference is the 40 innings, IMO. Similar numbers but 5-6 starts more of it.

I was looking at K/BB ratio, which is lower for Beckett. (Which is obviously a plus for Sabathia).

[ISiddiqui]

If we look at VORP:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/st...php?cid=204030

We'll see that Sabathia (65.2) has a decent lead on Beckett (58.6). Probably a result of the 40+ more innings, but that is important.

[Buccaneer]

So with everything else being pretty much equal, longevity = being light years better? Do you make the same argument that pitchers with good career values are light years better than those with the peak values?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So with everything else being pretty much equal, longevity = being light years better? Do you make the same argument that pitchers with good career values are light years better than those with the peak values?

guys that pitch like beckett did in the playoffs are better. call it whatever you want.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So with everything else being pretty much equal, longevity = being light years better? Do you make the same argument that pitchers with good career values are light years better than those with the peak values?

If course that depends on the career values and peak values we are talking about . Though I've seen that arguement made many a time, and let's be honest longevity does count... except when a player has an INSANE peak (ie, Pedro Martinez).

[Crapshoot]

Look, Sabathia's 40 inning peak was huge - in terms of the most valuable player for the season, he was worth more than Beckett, and I don't really think its close (a 15% differential as per VORP).

Of course, those 40 IP definitely made a difference in the post-season (and if I were the Indians, I'd offer Sabathia up to a team that loses the Johan negotations - I think he will hurt next year).

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by molson

Light years? What am I missing, as that does seem to be the consensus.

Beckett had more wins, a better H/IP ratio, more Ks/9 innings, less walks/9 innings, lower OPS against. What nerd stats am I missing.

CC did have 40 more innings pitched, which is huge, but this seems like a really close race.

Nerd stats? You're one of those idiots who would prefer we use wins?

Sabathia had basicallly the same DERA as Beckett (3.36 vs. 3.33), a 6 to 1 K/BB ratio (vs 5 to 1) for Beckett. You'd have to an impressive Boston homer to argue that Beckett deserved it over CC.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So with everything else being pretty much equal, longevity = being light years better? Do you make the same argument that pitchers with good career values are light years better than those with the peak values?

Trola:

No, but in a one-season measure of who was better, it takes some creativity to suggest Beckett was better than Sabathia. Hell, even if Sabathia hadn't pitched those extra 40 IP, I'd say you could reasonably make the case for him as the Cy Young winner.

[rkmsuf]

assuming that these dolts that vote for this have clue what DERA or VORP is then this makes perfect sense.


to me these awards are meaningless overall. outside of the bonus to the players of course.


ONE third place vote next year and Schilling makes a cool million. Sign me up for a little something for the effort.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Nerd stats? You're one of those idiots who would prefer we use wins?

Sabathia had basicallly the same DERA as Beckett (3.36 vs. 3.33), a 6 to 1 K/BB ratio (vs 5 to 1) for Beckett. You'd have to an impressive Boston homer to argue that Beckett deserved it over CC.

Or maybe K/9, H/IP or OPSA? Look, Sabathia may deserve it but not light years when Becket beats him in several slice/dice categories.

[rkmsuf]

What the fuck is OPSA?

What the fuck is a frush. Two kings beats a frush and OPSA I think.

[Buccaneer]

OPS Against.

Maybe Crap is being the homer or something.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

OPS Against.

Maybe Crap is being the homer or something.

I think these stats are great but really. They mean nothing in terms of this award.

Don't mind me. I hate all these awards. I think the people that get worked up over them other than the player themselves are ridiculous to some degree.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

What the fuck is OPSA?

What the fuck is a frush. Two kings beats a frush and OPSA I think.

Vorp you man.

[GreenMonster]

As a Sox fan I have no problem with CC winning the award. The stats were very similiar and CC throw 5-6 more times. That being said, CC was tired and worn down in his playoff starts, while Beckett still had his good stuff and it showed.

[korme]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So with everything else being pretty much equal, longevity = being light years better? Do you make the same argument that pitchers with good career values are light years better than those with the peak values?

I think it is different arguments. Here we are debating who was essentially the most valuable player of pitching... not the best pitcher in the league. Sabathia contributing to 40 innings more in a single season is a huge difference to his club, very valuable, if you will.

[Hammer755]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So with everything else being pretty much equal, longevity = being light years better? Do you make the same argument that pitchers with good career values are light years better than those with the peak values?

Are you seriously asking this question? If two players have the exact same rate stats in a career, of course you choose the one who has the longevity advantage.

And nobody is talking about peak vs. career, so I'm not sure why the second question would even be posed in this discussion.

[Crapshoot]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/

Nate's post says it best:

But this case was different, because the differences between C.C. Sabathia and Josh Beckett were otherwise very subtle. They finished with nearly identical ERAs (3.27 for Beckett, 3.21 for Sabathia), and the same number of losses (seven apiece). Both pitchers had outstanding strikeout-to-walk ratios (209-to-37 for Sabathia, 194-to-40 for Beckett). Each one led his team to 96 wins and the division crown. This was not the case in previous years; when Pedro Martinez won the 2000 award with 18 wins in 2000, his microscopic 1.74 ERA was less than half that of 20-game winners Tim Hudson (4.14) and David Wells (4.11).

Let’s take nothing away from Josh Beckett, who has a World Series ring to show for his efforts, and who is the best right-handed pitcher in his league right now. But the voters made the right choice. The principle reason is simply a matter of volume. Sabathia pitched 241 innings to Beckett’s 200.7, an advantage of more than 20 percent. He completed the 7th inning 24 times, as opposed to Beckett’s 15, a critical threshold for a team with a set-up man as effective as Rafael Betancourt, but inconsistent middle relief. As a result, Sabathia finished with a 65.2 Value Over Replacement Player (VORP) to Beckett’s 58.6. The voters have started to look at these statistics, and it’s giving them a more complete picture of pitcher performance.

[SirFozzie]

I think Sabathia deserved it.. but I think it was close (Not a gimme by any stretch of the imagination), and I think Beckett was better when it mattered

[molson]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Nerd stats? You're one of those idiots who would prefer we use wins?

I actually meant "nerd stat" as something of an endearing term.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Crap, that's nice and all but I'm trying to figure out who's arguing that Beckett deserved it.

I think the only contention is with the "light years" quote, which you really haven't addressed at all.

+1

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Crap, that's nice and all but I'm trying to figure out who's arguing that Beckett deserved it.

I think the only contention is with the "light years" quote, which you really haven't addressed at all.

Fair enough - that may have been over-the-top on my end. I will say that I don't think it was close - at all. The fact that Beckett got 8 first-place votes was pretty ridiculous.

[molson]

Sabathia is light years better than Chan Ho Park.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by GreenMonster

As a Sox fan I have no problem with CC winning the award. The stats were very similiar and CC throw 5-6 more times. That being said, CC was tired and worn down in his playoff starts, while Beckett still had his good stuff and it showed.

I agree and I'm an Indians fan.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Fair enough - that may have been over-the-top on my end. I will say that I don't think it was close - at all. The fact that Beckett got 8 first-place votes was pretty ridiculous.

Pretty ridiculous? Now you're definitely over the top. Quit while you're ahead. Sabathia deserved the Cy Young. But the light years comment was beyond silly. Retract and move on, I say.