Tim Lincecum - 34 G (33 GS), 18-5, 2 CG (1 SHO), 227 IP, 2.62 ERA (164 ERA+), with a 1.172 WHIP and 265 K vs. 84 BB (3.15 K/BB ratio).

Johan Santana - 34GS, 16-7, 3 CG (2 SHO), 234.1 IP, 2.53 ERA (163 ERA+), with a 1.148 WHIP and 206 K vs. 63 BB (3.27 K/BB ratio)

In case anyone was wondering, Brandon Webb - 34 GS, 22-7, 226.2 IP, 3.30 ERA (138 ERA+), with a 1.196 WHIP and 183 K vs. 65 BB (2.82 K/BB ratio)

First, *that* is why Webb shouldn’t be in the discussion. He had a fine season - but the other three were clearly (and decidedly) better this season in every category except wins (far more a team stat than the other pitching stats listed).

Second… I may have to re-think this. Sabathia is right there on the full-year numbers. Factor in the innings pitched (in part due to the inordinate amount of complete games), as well as the obvious impact he did have on his team that did make the playoffs (a reasonable “tiebreaker” in my mind, as discussed above in the NL MVP discussion). Hmmm… I guess I’d say that any one of Santana, Lincecum, or Sabathia should win it - though they should be the top three in *some* order - and I couldn’t and wouldn’t be upset. Terrific years for all three.

Fwiw, the following are the Win Share totals for all three: Sabathia - 25 total (16 w/ MIL + 9 w/ CLE), Lincecum - 27, Santana - 21. By that measure, the finish should be Lincecum, Sabathia, Santana. Interesting. Fwiw, Webb accumulated 22 Win Shares - and then Danny Haren had 20 WS, and no other NL pitcher had more than 18. Hmmm…. I still don’t like Webb to finish top-3 (although he may, given the 22-7 record).

As I understand win shares, it’s not supposed to matter whether the player is on a good team or not. Basically, a good team will have more wins - but that will be because more good players contributed more WS, resulting in more team wins… and conversely, a bad team will have fewer wins cuz fewer good players contributed less WS, resulting in fewer team wins. The individual Win Shares - in theory - should not be impacted by the quality of the team around each individual player. That said, but first glance of the raw numbers relative to the WS totals… seems like Santana’s gettins screwed somewhere, doesn’t it?

11-2 with a 1.65 ERA is ridiculous. He gave up 4 runs in just one start. The Brewers went 15-2 in his 17 starts, and he was dominant yesterday in an obviously crucial game.

Santana will probably win. He had a terrific year, and a great finish. Some might say that his bullpen cost him 5-6 wins (Which they did), but that wouldn’t have happened had he been able to complete more games. Sabathia didn’t allow his bullpen to blow any games for him.

Brandon Webb had a 5.70 ERA in his last 7 starts, thus killing any chance Arizona had to make the playoffs… His winning the Cy Young would be a travesty this year.

As for Manny leading the Dodgers to the playoffs, let’s give some credit to the D-Backs for losing that division as well (or even more than the Dodgers, and Manny, winning it). The Dodgers couldn’t have expected more when they basically got Manny for no money (with Boston paying his salary, or at least most of it… I forget the details on that). The interesting thing will be what they do this offseason with (or without) a contract offer to Manny - but we can discuss that in another month or so.

“Why shouldn’t Manny win MVP?” Three reasons: (1) Cuz Albert Pujols should (more in a moment), (2) Cuz he only played 1/3 of the season in the NL (more on this in a moment), and (3) Cuz he’s a prick who shot his way out of Dodge and shouldn’t be rewarded (simply on principle) with hardware when he decided to try again (no more needed on this point).

With the Dodgers, Manny put up an ungodly 1.232 OPS, for an obscene 213 OPS+. Course, when you factor in the other 2/3 of the season (since… um… I believe the MVP actually covers the entire season, not just the last two months), he “drops” to 1.031 OPS (more accurately, for comparison’s sake, 164 OPS+). This is still quite impressive, mind you - but just not nearly as impressive as Pujols’ 190 OPS+. And Albert managed to stay with a non-playoff team rather than pull a Manny: threaten to not play, have to be coerced into playing by his teammates, until he ultimately soured an organization that had coddled/tolerated him for 7-1/2 years because he couldn’t stand the possibility of only getting what amounted to a 1yr/$20 million contract for next season (possibly).

My sense of MVP equates to “the best player”. If two players are fairly equal in that objective comparison, than the subjective aspect of “was he lucky enough to be on a team that was talented enough and/or in an easy enough division that he can be seen as ‘leading’ them to the playoffs?” can be used as the tiebreaker. Even if you, like Danny, focus on the “value” part of MVP and interpret it to mean “the best player on a playoff team”, you still need to acknowledge that Manny played *53* games for the Dodgers. Would they have made the playoffs without him? Not sure. I understand the argument that they wouldn’t - but submit there’s always a possibility they still make it without him… it’s possible. Name him Player-of-the-Month in August and September in the NL, if you’d like… he may very well deserve both - but the MVP is for the *entire season*, even if you choose to not acknowledge the best player (on a playoff *or* non-playoff roster) in your voting.

Albert Pujols had 37 HR and 115 RBI in the NL this season. Manny had 17 HR and 53 RBI (as noted). Since the MVP is (or at least, should be) for the entire season, it seems to me that Albert Pujols did (far) better in the NL this season than Manny. Among *qualified* NL hitters (i.e. guys that have been here longer than 53 games), Pujols is #2 in BA, #2 in OBP, #1 in SLG - and so not surprisingly, #1 in OPS. Plus, by all accounts, he’s a great guy and a great teammate. His dumb luck that the Cardinals were in a far better division than the Dodgers. Pujols led his team (the entire season) to 86 wins (in a tougher division) - but Manny only helped his team to 84 wins (in a weaker division).

If the argument then becomes, “Well, the Dodgers would’ve won more games if Manny was there more than 53 games”, well… I don’t disagree necessarily - but the MVP voting is not about “what if?” it’s about “what did you do?”. Albert Pujols should be named unanaimously the NL MVP - unless the Atlanta voters put Chipper ahead of him in a blind act of loyalty. Any other “winner” would be a catastrophic insult to all that is logical and accurate.

P.S. Where’s the post telling us that CC Sabathia should win the NL CYA? It’s the same argument. For the record, as previously discussed, I think Lincecum deserves it - although Santana may steal some votes with his end-of-year heroics (which still weren’t enough for the woeful Mets) and Webb’s 22 wins (Lincecum is second, all alone, with 18 - on a *horrible* team) will get him more votes than he deserves. But by your logic, especially considering what he did today on three days rest with his team’s playoff hopes hanging in the balance, CC Sabathia should be named the NL CYA in your opinion, no?