Ok so I was curious if everyone truly thinks that Verlander deserved a unanimous decision on the Cy Young Ballot? If you did i would like to know what put him over the top so much?
Consider the following statistics.
- Justin Verlander has 15 starts giving up at least 3 or more runs & 6 starts giving up 4 or more. While Jered Weaver only has 9 starts giving up 3 or more.
- Verlander has 19 starts with 2 or less runs, while Weaver has 24 STARTS with 2 or less runs!
24 out of 33! or 19 out of 34?
- Verlander puts up 3.29 in 49.2 innings against the 4 teams + boston that made the playoffs (This doesnt include verlander’s 20 innings in the postseason that he posted a 5.31 era, it would = 3.85 in 70 inn.)
- Weaver put up 3.03 era in 77 innings against those same teams!
- Weav faced New York and Texas top 2 hitting teams 7 times! Verlander, 3 times.
- Verlander pitches behind the 2nd best offense & best setup/closer roles in ALL of baseball and gets 7 WINS after allowing 3 or more runs, while Weaver pitches infront of a below average offense ranked #15 with a rookie closer and gets a total of ONE win after allowing 3 or more runs!!
- Weaver pitched 3 days rest twice(once after jet-lag from grandfathers funeral) and helped push Angels offense for a post-season run. Verlander did his first 3 day rest in the postseason, but gave up 5 runs.
Now comes the heart of my post as I am trying to find some fault in my argument. After considering these statistics I was wondering if this truly is a good enough argument to debate the Cy Young decision. I am curious if anyone can counter this argument with anything good (sorry if I sound cocky haha). If anyone has anything to explain this blunder please explain what i am missing in my thinking.
The rest of my argument is as follows...
Not to take anything away from Verlander who is a tremendous athlete, but the bottom line is that Verlander was overhyped after his no hitter to a team that was in a hitting slump missing its 2 best hitters(Batistsa and Lind). Weaver’s 3 hit 8 innings against the Yankees in a tense September Race showdown, is a feat much more valuable than Verlander’s no hitter when half of the Yankees lineup made the All star game. Once again I am not trying to take anything away from Verlander's credability. It's much easier to get a better WHIP when u play the top 2 hitting teams 3 times in a season, versus Weavers 7 times, not including Detroit’s lineup!
So should that no-no combined with an offense that provided 24 wins with a great pitcher give us a pretty good gimmick for cy-young? Wins obviously shouldn't factor into determining the best pitcher but how much should a bonus feat such a Verlander's no-hitter factor in?? Sure it is a part of history, but shouldn't Cy Young determine the best overall pitcher of the season, not so much the biggest game changer at a certain game?
If you look at the stats Weaver totally outpitched in clutch situations against BETTER teams. Verlander may have more IP, but that can be said only because his manager thinks Verlander is the greatest pitcher to come out of baseball. A “Dusty Baker” type over-pitching strategist, versus Scoscia who takes guys like Dan Haren out in a 9th inning shutout bid.
Lastly i'd like to make it known that Verlander is an amazing pitcher, but i guess my question to all you fans is that should his no-hitter, and other intangibles, that don't necessarily determine a better pitcher, make Verlander the unanimous Cy Young for 2011 even when Weaver out-pitched in every category once adjust the stats to teams faced?