ok, so they chose him for cy young, well if you werent sure it was a regular season award, you do now. he lead his team no where, couldnt pitch in the post season, well im sure beckett will show him his series ring. i feel Beckett is the winner, anyone agree?
2007-11-13 11:07:18 · 15 answers · asked by SoxFan73 2 in Sports ➔ Baseball
i did not just watch the post season, i was talking about C C not taking his team anywhere in the playoffs.....i know its a regular season award, but i didnt think he was that much better..i am not a NON educated red sox fan
2007-11-13 12:14:17 · update #1
Don't forget, this is for regular season only. It doesn't matter how he led his team nowhere, but it takes more then one guy to lead a team to the playoffs. The other pitchers and players just didn't do as well as him. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out that it takes more then one guy to take the team to the playoffs. He had only one less win than Beckett, but under 40 walks, more strikeouts than Beckett, a lower ERA with the most games. That is good! Yes it was close, but he deserved it. I think people only think that Beckett should have gotten it because his team won the WS, and he did so well in the playoffs and WS, but those don't count. This is for the regular season only, which I'm glad. That is only fair.
2007-11-13 11:15:56 · answer #1 · answered by St. Louis Cardinals Fan 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Of course it's a regular season award - it's voted on the day after the season ends, so obviously it doesn't take the playoffs into account. And Beckett also won the ultimate prize, which I'm sure he would never trade for an individual award.
As for the voting, CC did have slightly better numbers in the regular season. I was surprised, though, that the vote wasn't closer.
2007-11-13 19:13:10 · answer #2 · answered by Craig S 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, he was better than Beckett. Beckett had one more win, but Sabathia had better numbers all across the board. The one stat that sticks out is Sabathia had 241 innings, Beckett 200. Sabathia was a horse all year long, and if he had the Red Sox offense, he probably would have won 22-23 games.
You also could make the argument that Sabathia was worn down in the postseason because he had so many more innings. If Beckett has that many innings, then he probably isn't as strong in the postseason either.
2007-11-13 20:58:00 · answer #3 · answered by Jeffrey S 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
cy youg is for the regular season not for the playoffs. CC numbers were better then becketts thats why he got the award
2007-11-13 19:45:52 · answer #4 · answered by Ron N 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Beckett did win more games. I'd rather be a World series champ than the Cy Young award winner.
2007-11-13 19:16:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
You are correct, he wasn't that much better than Beckett but just enough better to win the Cy Young.
2007-11-13 20:59:40 · answer #6 · answered by Frizzer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I disagree. The postseason has nothing to do with it. Blank it out of your mind. Forget it ever happened. If I went by that, CC is the Cy Young winner. They are very close, and I'm surprised CC won by as much as he did, but I still feel CC has the edge for the REGULAR SEASON.
2007-11-13 19:50:13 · answer #7 · answered by red4tribe 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
WHAT PART OF "REGULAR SEASON AWARD" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? Forget the playoffs. It's irrelevant.
CC had slightly better stats during the regular season. Either one could have won the award. If Beckett had won I don't think there would have been any arguments.
2007-11-13 19:18:58 · answer #8 · answered by The Mick 7 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
They were both deserving, but Beckett has a ring which I would treasure more. I thought the voting would be closer.
2007-11-13 19:11:16 · answer #9 · answered by Sharon S 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
See Mo Vaughn and Al Belle circa 95. Only that time it was the Indians beating the redsox and going to the series.
2007-11-13 19:15:02 · answer #10 · answered by dCon 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋