Greinke still has an ERA of 2.16 in 229.1 innings, and CC still has an ERA of 3.37 in 230 IP, and all we’re changing is the wins and losses of the two pitchers?

If that’s the case, CC would need to be like 25-5 (or better) and Greinke would need to be like 15-15 (or worse) in order for me to be so swayed by the flawed statistic of wins and losses to make it make me overlook the far more critical stats like ERA/tRA/FIP.

If Greinke goes 16-15 and CC goes 24-6, I still give the Cy Young to Greinke on the strength of that 2.16 ERA. That’s far more impressive than the wins and losses.

This is a good development, not a bad one. It shows that the voters are beginning to move away from the flawed win-centric model of pitcher evaluation popular in the past.

2) Relief pitchers have won the award 9 times.

Most of those wins are very dubious in retrospect.

3) Other than strike years and relievers, a 20 game winner won the award 66 times and a non-20 game winner has won 16 times.

Again, I’m not sure where you’re going with this. Old baseball writers are, for the most part, dumb.

4) Other than Steve Carlton, Greinke is the only winner from a last place team.

See #1. This is a good thing. Frankly, more last-place pitchers should be winning the award. For both the MVP and Cy Young, it specifically tells voters on the ballot not to eliminate a player just because he’s on a bad team.

I still say, historically speaking now, Mo should have been given more consideration

I still say, historically speaking, the histories of these awards are full of errors we should not be duplicating.

No point in even bothering to try to predict any of them, no matter how much evidence we may be able to gather that would naturally lend itself to reasonably intelligent guesses using predictive forecasting. Nope, it’s pointless. Matt Holliday could sign a 3 year, 30M deal tomorrow. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Sincerely,
Bo