I guess you could say that the baseball management is catching up to statistics because it gives them a competitive edge, but the BBWAA is going to lag behind for a long time before understanding what's worth honoring in the game.

The voters clearly aren't too occupied with more meaningful stats like WHIP, DIPS, or even ERA. I doubt they even took a thought to park factors.

This frustrates the heck out of me to no end, and I look at it a lot like those voters who damn near require a ring for admittance into the HOF. Cesar Crespo has a ring, and Don Mattingly doesn't. Hmmmm.....

The only statistic more important than wins is intangibles. Plus Roger has "calm eyes". They should just let Tim McCarver choose the winner every year since he knows the most.

Obviously RJ deserved the award, but I think there has been progress in that 26 out of 32 voters had Johnson either 1st or 2nd. Ten years ago he would have been way down the list behind Oswalt, Schmidt, etc.

I also think Peavy should have gotten some consideration. But what about Oliver Perez? And Ben Sheets was the 1st or 2nd best pitcher in the NL this year and he barely got a mention!

Randy was 13-2 when his team scored TWO RUNS.

THATS RIGHT AT LEAST TWO RUNS.

You dont need any other stats than that. No statistical analysis... no whips, dips, crips or bloods.

There is a chasm developing (wow I used chasm in a sentence) between the saber savy bloggers and the traditional cigar smoking, bourbon swilling media.

This CY Young is an example of that.

You know what I find funny?

The mainstream media always seems to bash statistics. They always like talking about how the stats don't matter, and about how they "don't need stats" to see who the best players are.

However, when you get right down to it, the writers/media are more dependant on statistics than anyone in the world. They don't care who the better pitcher is. They don't care who had the best performance. All they care about is who led the league in one stat: Wins.

Every year, they bash people for "looking at the stats instead of the field," but every year they do exactly that. They don't measure Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens based on how they pitched. They just load up ESPN.com, look at who had the most "wins," and vote accordingy.

It's brilliant.

I should add:

I realize that Clemens didn't actually *lead the league* in wins. You know what I meant though. ;)

Yup. They like stats, too, just not the ones that are better indicators of who's playing better baseball.

Sorry, but the CYA should go to the most valuable pitcher unless there is an overwhelming case for the best pitcher (Steve Carlton, 1972). Considering what Clemens did for the Astros, he gets the vote. As I said (in part) here:

. . . the best pitcher does not necessarily put up the absolute best numbers (yeah, this cuts against my 1990 argument until you look at the '90 A's and realize that Welch wasn't even the best pitcher on his own team). Clemens came out of retirement to pitch close to home with his good friend Andy Pettitte and to be a contributor/mentor to a staff that had Roy Oswalt, Wade Miller and Pettitte leading it. Instead, Miller went down early; Pettitte's foreseen (by the Yanks) elbow problems killed his season less than halfway through and Clemens had to anchor the staff (Oswalt struggled early, recovered). Clemens led the Astros' pitching staff and helped an undermanned team net a wild card berth that led to a tough loss in the NLCS.

first, the cy did NOT go to the guy with the most wins - that was roy oswalt. and it didn't go to the guy with the most wins last year either, if you remember.

second, what the monk said is right. and i think the voters were right to consider that.

third, the voters DO consider stats - they like Ks, few BB or HR, QS, #IP and all sorts of things - like most wins after a loss, etc. they don't hafta use the stats you demand. like dips (which is a pile of @#!) players play for a team and it isn't a bad thing to consider a player's value to that team.

i wouldn't have been upset if rj had won. but it isn't terrible that roger won, either (and the bullpen lost him 3 games, too)