Dodgers' Clayton Kershaw Wins 2011 National League Cy Young Award; Roy Halladay Finishes Second
by WholeCamels on Nov 17, 2011 2:12 PM EST
Email
PrintAs expected, Dodgers' left-hander and winner of the 2011 National League Pitching Triple Crown Clayton Kershaw was named the 2011 National League Cy Young Award winner. Kershaw garnered 27 of the 32 first place votes.
The Phillies Trio of Aces made a strong showing, with Roy Halladay finishing second and collecting four of the remaining five first place votes, Cliff Lee placing third, and Cole Hamels finishing fifth.
The last first place vote went to Diamondbacks' starter Ian Kennedy, who finished fourth in total voting.
Kershaw, 23, took the next step in a brilliant young career, leading the National League in victories (21), ERA (2.28) and strikeouts (248). Halladay had the edge in more advanced metrics, including WAR, FIP/xFIP, and SIERA, but in the end the traditionally brilliant performance of Kershaw was more persuasive to voters. A worthy winner, and congratulations to Mr. Kershaw.
Complete voting results after the jump....
| Pitcher, Team | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clayton Kershaw, Los Angeles Dodgers | 27 | 3 | 2 | 207 | ||
| Roy Halladay, Philadelphia Phillies | 4 | 21 | 7 | 133 | ||
| Cliff Lee, Philadelphia Phillies | 5 | 17 | 9 | 1 | 90 | |
| Ian Kennedy, Arizona Diamondbacks | 1 | 3 | 6 | 18 | 3 | 76 |
| Cole Hamels, Philadelphia Phillies | 2 | 13 | 17 | |||
| Tim Lincecum, San Francisco Giants | 1 | 5 | 7 | |||
| Yovani Gallardo, Milwaukee Brewers | 1 | 3 | 5 | |||
| Matt Cain, San Francisco Giants | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||
| John Axford, Milwaukee Brewers | 2 | 2 | ||||
| Craig Kimbrel, Atlanta Braves | 2 | 2 | ||||
| Madison Bumgarner, San Francisco Giants | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Ryan Vogelsong, San Francisco Giants | 1 | 1 |
87 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Don’t disagree with Kershaw winning, but I think he won by too much.
The Good Phight, NotGraphs, Twitter, fun!
Pretty much impossible to overcome the Pitching Triple Crown.
If Halladay had come out ahead in ERA it probably would’ve been a tossup.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
Also, if it’s close they’ll give it to a guy who hasn’t already won it multiple times. Spread the wealth.
Damn pinko-commie bastards.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Nov 17, 2011 2:54 PM EST up reply actions
That makes it 13 for 13 for winners of the triple crown (from a True Blue L.A. post):
-------
Celebrating over 50 years of slightly more Phils wins than losses: 1961-2011
so is this the first year that pitchers from each league won the triple crown?
Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.
-Oscar Wilde
by VanceinmyPants on Nov 17, 2011 9:11 PM EST up reply actions
As far as I know the table above is complete, so yes it looks like it is the first time it’s happened.
-------
Celebrating over 50 years of slightly more Phils wins than losses: 1961-2011
only complete since 1956. before then:
1924: Walter Johnson (AL), Dazzy Vance (NL)
1918: Walter Johnson (AL), Hippo Vaughn (NL)
1905: Rube Waddell (AL), Christy Mathewson (NL)
related trivia … the only time hitters from each league won the triple crown, both played in Philadelphia: Chuck Klein and Jimmie Foxx in 1933.
by perfectdepth on Nov 17, 2011 10:23 PM EST up reply actions
I just read this interesting take on the Cy Young candidates:
http://walksaber.blogspot.com/2011/11/iba-ballot-cy-young.html
The first and only commenter, though—whew. He won the triple crown. The discussion ends there. Also, how they each fared against the top 20 hitters in the NL? Really?
"I wouldn’t run if there was a fire. I wouldn’t run anywhere. I hate running." - O. Munn
Ian Kennedy in first? Who the hell thought that one up.
by Phrozen on Nov 17, 2011 2:25 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
My first guess would be Hymen, but he wanted to vote Kershaw because he beat Tim Lincecum three times this past season, so I really can’t say for sure.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Predictable, though I’m mostly annoyed by how much of a blowout it was.
And whoever voted for Axford or Vogelsong needs to quit baseball.
by philsandthrills on Nov 17, 2011 2:52 PM EST reply actions
So when’s Mackanin getting the BoSox job?
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Nov 17, 2011 4:16 PM EST up reply actions
Does anybody know what a bench coach actually does? Write the lineup card? Take over when the manager gets ejected? Is there anything more consequential?
Like, “hitting coach” or “pitching coach” is pretty obvious. Bench coach, not so much.
Coaches the Bench I presume (you sit here….and you sit here….and you sit over there…)
Everything's more important with bunting.
by Veni Vidi Vici on Nov 17, 2011 6:09 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
So at Phillies practice, Halladay works with Rich Dubee on pitching, Howard works with Greg Gross on hitting, Utley works with Juan Samuel on baserunning…and Dom Brown works with Pete Mackanin on being benched?
by topherstarr on Nov 18, 2011 8:44 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
After King Felix winning last year I held some hope that the writer’s would look past the very unreliable “traditional” stats this year and give it to a more deserving Halladay, but it wasn’t to be. The final results of the vote made me very sad, there is no way in hell it should have been such a blowout.
The Felix situation was different. He was vastly superior in pretty much all of the traditional stats except W/L, but actually trailed others (Lee, Verlander) in some of the advanced metrics. Kershaw was slightly better in ALL of the traditional metrics.
IOW, Felix won because of his superiority in ERA/Ks, etc. It wasn’t a rebuke of all traditional stats; it was a rebuke of W/L record as a defining position.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
My feeling towards the nitwit that gave Ian Kennedy a first-place vote
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Nov 17, 2011 7:34 PM EST up reply actions
Eric Seidman's take
Was Kershaw Really Better Than Halladay?
Halladay was the best pitcher in the National League for the second-straight season, and Lee was right on par with Kershaw. It’s unfortunate that one of those Phillies pitchers lost because of unadjusted numbers and them "splitting" votes with one another. Kershaw pitched very well, but not as well as 27 of 32 first place votes makes it seem.
-------
Celebrating over 50 years of slightly more Phils wins than losses: 1961-2011
Also this gem regarding by Seidman regarding Amaro’s lack of patience.
It made me hurt inside.
Ed Snider is a crotchety old fuck.
That is all.
I think he’s done a pretty good job so far. It will be impossible to tell until several years down the line, but with him at the helm, the Phillies should stay competitive. Ed Wade and Pat Gillick both did some of the stupid things that RAJ gets flack for (trading two nearly Major League ready pitchers for Freddy Garcia and signing Adam Eaton for one) and the team has become of the best in the MLB.
That being said, one of the worst things was the Howard extension. I will never understand why the Phillies front office hierarchy thought it to be a wise move. It was an over market contract for a player who’s been in a consistent decline since 2006. Sure, he has market potential and all, but viewing the potential free agent market for 2011, they had to know that there was a good chance that Pujols or Fielder would be available. Maybe those two wouldn’t be as good or Howard would’ve exploded. Regardless, it would’ve given them the chance to pick and choose at that point. If the Howard contract had been for $15mil/yr, it may have been much easier to swallow. As it stands, it was certainly jumping the gun in the worst way.
Made me hurt because it’s so poorly written, and relies on the fallacy of the predetermined outcome. Pujols and/or Fielder are going to be better than Howard in 2013? They are better right now and maybe 2012, but they aren’t hobbling around in a “walking boot.” Who predetermined that? It’s a nightmare, but if we’re patient, it might end.
I was wondering what size animal it needed to be to not be a pitch. - Roy Oswalt
You completely missed the point. It has nothing to do with Pujols and Fielder being better than Howard which they both are by the way. It has to do with the fact that if Ruben had waited until now he would have had his chance at any one of the three of them, at a lower price than what he agreed to pay Howard two years before he had to make a decision. If, just by chance Pujols and Fielder get 25 mil a year, which I don’t think will happen then that just goes to show that Howard would have cost less than that, and yet he’s going to probably end up making more than both of them despite being not as good as either of them.
Ed Snider is a crotchety old fuck.
That is all.
Wow that last sentence makes my head hurt, but the point remains.
It’s not about the fallacy of predetermination, it’s about the track record of impatience and how it could cost the Phillies.
Ed Snider is a crotchety old fuck.
That is all.
I got the point of the article, but I still think it’s relying on predetermination. Or maybe post-rationalization is more like it. Howard has been playing hurt and is now seriously hurt so it looks like a bad contract. But there can be a big benefit to an early signing, Howard-style. Aren’t some Good Phighters calling for an early signing of Hamels? Howard did everything right after his signing. Lost weight, worked on his fielding, came to Clearwater in great shape. We’re nothing without him, and also, he’s a good guy. And a gamer. I value loyalty in a GM and I imagine the players do too. The Madson-Papelbon move therefore shocked me, but I guess the douchebaggery of Scott Boras trumps all.
I was wondering what size animal it needed to be to not be a pitch. - Roy Oswalt
no, you didn’t get the point of the article; it’s not in any way shape or form a post-rationalization
it looked like a bad contract the second it was announced; no one who knows anything thinks otherwise—but it happens to be the case that what’s happened since the contract was signed has managed to make it worse than it already was, which is quite an accomplishment
if you can’t tell the difference between Hamels and Howard, then that’s not our problem
I’m not defending the amount of the contract; it was obviously too high. So were many others across history that nevertheless brought us or held us exceptional players or even not-so-exceptional players who brought us great joy. Amaro is saying that we are OK money-wise even now. He said if we go above the luxury tax, so be it. Bluffing? Whatever.
Hmm, the difference between Hamels and Howard. It isn’t that one of them hasn’t ever had a sub-par year or a disappointing post-season. Maybe it is that one of them plays every day and the other only every fifth day? That one of them is essential to the lineup and the other isn’t? Would that be it? I am NOT saying Howard’s stats aren’t replaceable. But Howard-hating is … ungrateful.
I was wondering what size animal it needed to be to not be a pitch. - Roy Oswalt
You’re right. I retract that characterization. I just don’t have a big problem with his being paid and locked in for awhile (except for the injury, unforeseen at the time). Amaro says we’re fine moneywise, so I don’t think the frequent angst over Howard’s contract (from various sources) is warranted. Some players deserve job security and substantial reward and in my opinion he’s one of ‘em. Posts like some in this thread treat the players as interchangeable stats. That’s fun and interesting but it isn’t the only way to look at players. Related question: Don’t teams have insurance against catastrophic injury?
I was wondering what size animal it needed to be to not be a pitch. - Roy Oswalt
Decided not to be lazy and looked up the particulars. Interesting, though possibly dated, piece on Legalball here. Shorter-term disability insurance policies tend to keep contracts shorter, leading to higher player turnover and less fan loyalty.
I was wondering what size animal it needed to be to not be a pitch. - Roy Oswalt
If Howard were still in his twenties (performing still as he did in his twenties), then I say yes, by all means, lock him up for several years
but he’s not; he’s already into his 30s, and was already a few years away from his one season that could have warranted his new deal… waiting it out would have either allowed the Phillies to lock him in for fewer dollars/years, or to go after someone like Pujols or Fielder, should they have wanted to…. but not waiting, they lost that opportunity; the two season since the extension was signed have only made the silliness of it more stark, and the achilles injury is just the perversely appropriate cherry on top
Hamels, on the other hand, is still young, just entering his prime; locking him up would be a vastly more logical move than locking up Howard was/would have been
that is the difference between them (plus the minor fact that Hamels is actually more valuable)
Well, he is certainly more valuable now, since he can walk. Here’s a well-written article on the subject that supports the views of everyone else on this thread. Except the part from the writer’s friend, in the box, where he talks about reward, intangibles, loyalty, first place, marketing, packed stands. That’s my view.
I was wondering what size animal it needed to be to not be a pitch. - Roy Oswalt
please note that Howard’s injury is completely irrelevant to the discussion (it is, however, perfect symbolically); Hamels has been more valuable for the last few seasons; there’s just no other way of looking at it that has any validity… also, crucially, he’s younger, much younger…
look, I like Ryan Howard; I do value loyalty, and I’m not above having sentimentality playing a role, so long as it accompanies semi-decent evaulation… I’m not sorry the Phillies wanted to keep Howard; I am sorry they were unable to properly evaluate his abilities, and thus both overpaid drastically, but worse did it way earlier than they needed to
meanwhile, you continue to mischaracterize what “everyone else on this thread” believes
Sorry? How did I mischaracterize it? All the comments I see in the thread are criticizing the contract. I thought I was being helpful and positive towards them by sending a link that supports that view. I didn’t have to do that; I’m trying to have a serious and nuanced conversation about this.
I said numerous times that Howard’s injury is irrelevant to the contract. The last was merely a snide remark to your highly debatable “minor fact” that Hamels (whom I want very much to stay) is more valuable. Fact? If you want to make that case, great, I think that would be interesting. But if you’re talking about the future, well, that kind of brings us back to the predetermined outcome. Sure, play the age percentages. But is that the only factor? I don’t play with stats myself, but I’m interested in that way of apprehending the world. Do your stats show us that the Phillies have won more with Hamels above replacement every fifth day with Howard in his lineup than with Howard above replacement every day with Hamels pitching for him, at most, every fifth day? Serious question.
I was wondering what size animal it needed to be to not be a pitch. - Roy Oswalt
Look, I’m not going to provide you with the details. Go spend some time at Fangraphs or Baseball-Reference on your own time.
This whole thread began when you took issue with a good article at Brotherly Glove which you claimed, incorrectly, “relies on the fallacy of the predetermined outcome”, which it does not in the least. You have implied numerous times that the rest of us are leaning on Howard’s injury as a reason he’s not as valuable. None of us—literally none of us—are doing that. Howard’s injury is merely the icing on the cake.
The only way, short of Howard magickly turning into Pujols or Barry Bonds, that Howard could have made the contract not be a disaster, is by declining relatively slowly. If he’d even been able to maintain his (substantially reduced) production from 2010-2011, then the contract would have remained a vast overpay, but it would not matter so much, cause that’s still useful production. The injury just pushes that idea off the cliff.
I said several times the injury is not a factor in my comments. That is why I think one could debate whether Hamels is more valuable to the Phillies than Howard. But if you and TP want to cut off debate, OK.
I was wondering what size animal it needed to be to not be a pitch. - Roy Oswalt
you said it was not a factor, but several times you also implied that we were treating it as a factor
there’s no point debating if we’re not on the same page on what’s being debated; I’m not going to do the work for you…. if you do the work, then come back and want to debate the matter (as you do some below), then I’m all for it
Well think about it for a second.
Hamels has so many more Winz than Howard. But Howard has way more HRz and RBIz than Hamels. It’s pretty close to wash.
Accept differing view points, TP!
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Nov 21, 2011 12:45 AM EST up reply actions
not necessary. I’m trying to see it your way.
I was wondering what size animal it needed to be to not be a pitch. - Roy Oswalt
I know. That wasn’t a shot at you, it was just a joke in taco pal’s direction. It appears that calling taco pal a close-minded a-hole is all the rage on TGP nowadays, I thought I might as well jump in on the fun.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Nov 23, 2011 11:17 AM EST up reply actions
As yolacrary said, if you have questions about the stats you should spend some time poking around, but here’s something to get you started:
2011 WAR:
Hamels 4.9
Howard 1.6
link: Phillies 2011 stats
WAR since 2006 (follow the links for their career stats):
Hamels 23.0
Howard 20.5
-------
Celebrating over 50 years of slightly more Phils wins than losses: 1961-2011
Thanks very much. I’ll take a closer look. It seems counterintuitive that any all-star position player, playing virtually every day, is not more valuable to his team than any all-star pitcher, playing every fifth day, but it sounds like you’ve all reviewed the numbers.
I was wondering what size animal it needed to be to not be a pitch. - Roy Oswalt
OK. I thought WAR was 1/10 of RAR but that isn’t how it is showing on the FanGraph. If you look at their RAR you get Hamels 216.5 and Howard 206.7 (both 2006-2011) which would be WAR 21.7 and 20.7. There is a small error in the addition of the RAR stats so I am not entirely trusting the chart, but let’s go with it for now. I also did it fast so I could have made an error. But a 1 WAR difference, or even the stated 2.5 WAR difference, between them certainly isn’t so astronomical that the issue is beyond debate, is it?
I was wondering what size animal it needed to be to not be a pitch. - Roy Oswalt
It’s not, except that Howard has been declining. So if the question is who is more valuable today (or even who’s been more valuable recently), it becomes much less debatable.
Since 2009: Hamels 12.4, Howard 7.6
-------
Celebrating over 50 years of slightly more Phils wins than losses: 1961-2011
Yes, thank you.
I had thought that the age disparity would have made it obvious by itself that Hamels is the more valuable player, but apparently it was not.
I am aware of the age disparity and the vast 2011 WAR gap (Howard’s nagging injury year). If you want to say Hamels is more valuable right now and going forward, I heartily agree. But the discussion was about the contract. I am not buying the argument, at least not yet, that Howard shouldn’t have been paid handsomely for many years because Hamels is more valuable and now we don’t have the money to pay him. I debate this on two grounds, one, we do have the money (this point should be moved to WC’s new thread, I guess), and two, we did not know then what we know now. We also do not know whether Hamels will be healthy at any point in the future. To a large degree, these things are a leap of faith, based on more than numbers, based on numerous intangibles. In addition, monster contracts are often rewards for past performance. That’s why I was talking about loyalty. OK, now I’m going over old ground so we can drop it if you want.
I was wondering what size animal it needed to be to not be a pitch. - Roy Oswalt
when you sign a stupid fucking contract multiple years before the guy is a FA to an ABOVE MARKET salary you run the risk of this crap happening.
The best case scenario for that Greek Debt channeled contract was for Howard to be massively overpaid for the last 3 years and highly overpaid for 2 years. Not to mention he’d be making more than better players, one of whom is much younger who were set to hit FA the same year as him which would have either A) killed his leverage or B) given you the opportunity to make an overpay in FA but for a much better player.
There is no silver lining, there is no bronze lining, it is a cast iron ball shackled around the legs of this franchise for 5 more years.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Nov 19, 2011 9:39 PM EST up reply actions
Just read those comments. First commenter feels the need to expose Seidman as being from Philly as his reasoning for picking Halladay.
Love all the folks that continue to come to Fangraphs to comment yet fail to understand the nature/scope of the articles. They do analysis based on metrics, not standard counting stats, but yet you still get the jabronis on there saying “He lead in strikeouts and ERA, ’nuff said”. Bah.
"I wouldn’t run if there was a fire. I wouldn’t run anywhere. I hate running." - O. Munn
Two more links:
The All-quirky Phillies – Manages to not mention Carlton.
Upcoming Hall of Fame Candidates, by Weighted WAR
-------
Celebrating over 50 years of slightly more Phils wins than losses: 1961-2011
Sooo has there ever been a team that didn’t make the playoffs with both the MVP and Cy Young on its roster?
The Jruth shall be told.
sort of. the 1962 LA Dodgers had MVP Maury Wills and Cy Young Don Drysdale and finished the regular season tied with the Giants at 101-61. LA then lost the tie-breaker series 1-2, and the Giants went to the World Series (which was, in those days, the only playoff round).
the other teams with both the MVP & Cy Young—surprisingly to me at least, there’s quite a few:
1957 Milwaukee Braves (Aaron & Spahn)
1959 Chicago White Sox (Fox & Wynn)
1960 Pittsburgh Pirates (Groat & Law)
1961 NY Yankees (Maris & Ford)
1967 Boston Red Sox (Yastrzemski & Lonborg)
1974 LA Dodgers (Garvey & Marshall)
1980 Philadelphia Phillies (Schmidt & Carlton)
1982 Milwaukee Brewers (Yount & Vuckovich)
1984 Chicago Cubs (Sandberg & Sutcliffe)
1988 LA Dodgers (Gibson & Hershiser)
1990 Oakland A’s (Henderson & Welch)
1991 Atlanta Braves (Pendleton & Glavine)
1993 Chicago White Sox (Thomas & McDowell)
2002 Oakland A’s (Tejada & Zito)
2005 St. Louis Cardinals (Pujols & Carpenter)
2006 Minnesota Twins (Morneau & Santana)
by perfectdepth on Nov 18, 2011 1:25 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on The Good Phight
Related FanShots on The Good Phight
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
Philadelphia Phillies
@
St. Louis Cardinals
Friday, May 25, 2012, 8:15 PM EDT
Busch Stadium
Clear. Winds blowing from right to left field at 5-15 m.p.h. Game time temperature around 90.
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
- The Juice: Mesoraco’s grand slam helps Reds complete four-game sweep of Braves
- Please hold: Indians’ Joe Smith jumps the gun on relief appearance
- Local radio host honors Cubs’ Tony Campana with parody song
- Roy Halladay bobblehead with glove on wrong hand selling on MLB.com
