I Know You Just Wrote This to Stir Controversy, But...

Relievers can't win the Cy Young Award.

I mean, they can, theoretically. If they put up a truly unprecedented, historic, dominant season, while simultaneously no starting pitcher has a particularly good year. That's never really happened. The voters have deemed a reliever worthy of the Cy Young Award nine times, and each time you can find starters who were far more worthy of the reward.

Why is this? Starting pitchers are always more valuable based on the number of innings they throw and how difficult they are to replace. It's relatively easy to find a pitcher who throw as hard as they can one inning a time without the need to worry about pitch counts or facing batters multiple times.

So, naturally, someone named Gregg Doyel of CBS Sports.com thinks that the two front-runners for the 2012 NL Cy Young Award are both relievers. And, according to him, it's not even close. He writes:

R.A. Dickey is having a Cy Young sort of season. So is Johnny Cueto. Maybe a few other starting pitchers in the National League, too, but especially Dickey and Cueto. They're on pace to win 20 games, lose fewer than half of those and finish among league leaders in ERA and strikeouts -- which is to say, they're having seasons typical of a Cy Young winner.

But Aroldis Chapman and Craig Kimbrel are having seasons that have never been done before.

So let's give the Cy Young to one of them.

Terrible, miserable logic. Hey, check this out: Aaron Cook of the Boston Red Sox is succeeding in the major leagues despite, quite literally, not striking anyone out, which has pretty much never been done before. Does he deserve the Cy Young? Simply because he's having a season that has "never been done before"? Of course not. This is stupid. Justin Verlander might win the AL Cy Young by doing the exact same thing he did last year. This does not detract from his candidacy.

Problem is, Chapman and Kimbrel are relievers, and relievers aren't supposed to win this thing.

Correct!

A closer will win it from time to time, but usually he has to have some bitchin' facial hair or 50-plus saves or just do like Sparky Lyle did in 1977 and pitch for the Yankees.

Well, that's one problem with my position. There are several, all of which can be explained away, but only in the hands of an expert. Which is where I come in. But first, I'll take your top three complaints.

1. It's too early to be talking about the Cy Young!

In a vacuum, yes -- if this were a typical season for the NL Cy Young, meaning it would go to the best starting pitcher, it would be way too early. (...)

But this isn't a typical season, because Chapman and Kimbrel aren't typical candidates. They're not even typical closer candidates. Chapman has 25 saves, which is nice but isn't going to lead the league -- and Kimbrel might not lead the league either, seeing how he's one behind Joel Hanrahan's league-leading 32. How do you give the Cy Young to a closer who doesn't lead the league in saves (or have bitchin' facial hair or pitch for the Yankees)?

You don't. And if the season ended today, voters wouldn't.

The ONLY thing in the universe worse than giving the Cy Young to a reliever is giving the Cy Young to a reliever based on the most arbitrary, dreamed-up statistic ever engineered: the save.

Without telling them why, I asked four baseball writers at CBSSports.com and one at Yahoo Sports for their top-three Cy Young ballot if the season ended today. None of them named Chapman or Kimbrel.

You should've taken the hint, dude.

So I'm here to get the word out, start a conversation about the NL Cy Young, because the right thing must be done. And the right thing is for Chapman and Kimbrel to be sitting in the lead at this moment.

2. Chapman and Kimbrel can't be THAT good.

They can, and they are. Again, they're historically good, both of them, which is weird because it's happening in the same season. (...)

This isn't the question. Of course they're THAT good. The question is whether they're good ENOUGH to overcome the very large natural gap that exists between starters and relievers. (Spoiler alert: they're not).

3. They don't work as many innings as starters.

No kidding. That's an argument-ender for lots of people, and on the surface, it makes sense. Dickey, Cueto, Cain, Kershaw -- lots of starters having great seasons are on pace to throw 200-plus innings, potentially tripling Chapman or Kimbrel.

But below the surface of that number are other numbers. Kimbrel's ERA is 1.29. Chapman's is slightly behind that at 1.34, but against National League foes, his ERA is 0.19.

But...you completely ignored that whole innings thing. You tried to distract me with those shiny ERAs. Nice try.

Because of the whole innings thing, ten NL starters have been as valuable or more valuable than Aroldis Chapman based on Wins Above Replacement. 21 have been at least as valuable as Craig Kimbrel. As Doyel pointed out, Chapman and Kimbrel's innings totals will be tripled by other top starting pitchers, like Johnny Cueto.

Chapman's ERA in 48 1/3 innings against National League opposition is zero point one-nine. Again, that's Little League stuff. (...)

He's pitching one inning at a time. You can't compare this to a starting pitcher's ERA. They are completely different things.

Actually, here's a good test. Both Johnny Cueto and Aroldis Chapman pitch for the first-place Cincinnati Reds. Chapman has a 1.34 ERA. Cueto has a 2.58 ERA. One would assume that Chapman > Cueto. Now: take Chapman off the Reds, and they'd lose a few more games, but they'd be fine. Take Cueto and his 100 additional innings off the Reds? They probably wouldn't be in first place. One of these players is far more difficult to replace than the other. Extrapolate from there.

You can see who would get my vote Cy Young, if the season ended today: Aroldis Chapman. But I would settle for Craig Kimbrel.

Anyone else? There isn't anyone else.

It's a complete fallacy to put relief pitchers in consideration for the same award as starting pitchers for reasons that go even beyond the innings gap. It's like comparing apples and oranges, or like giving the MVP award to a specialized bench player over an everyday player. For one, relievers are inherently replaceable (just look at Fernando Rodney, a scrap-heap pick-up converted into shutdown closer). Top aces, on the other hand, are the rarest, most-sought-after commodity in the game. Furthermore, Chapman and Kimbrel don't need to worry about fatigue or pitch counts or facing hitters multiple times. They get to throw as hard as they possibly can for one inning at a time. Who's to say that Stephen Strasburg or Clayton Kershaw couldn't do what Chapman and Kimbrel do? Quite frankly, it's easier. But most importantly of all:

Relief pitchers are almost always failed starting pitchers.

Again, because it's that important:

Relief pitchers are almost always failed starting pitchers.

That makes the reliever inherently inferior to the starter. If Aroldis Chapman and Craig Kimbrel were good enough to start, they would, because of how exponentially more valuable that role is compared to a bullpen arm. But they can't start. They can't do what Johnny Cueto and Matt Cain and R.A. Dickey and Cole Hamels do so well, for a variety of reasons. Chapman relies on superhuman velocity to beat hitters, which wouldn't hold up over a six-inning start. Plus, he would walk too many guys to be effective. Kimbrel can't start because he doesn't have the stamina, and his mechanics are far too wacky to survive the wear-and-tear of 200 innings. And neither Chapman nor Kimbrel has the third or fourth pitch that a starting pitcher needs.

Appreciate Chapman and Kimbrel for what they are, and acknowledge their brilliance within its proper context. But rewarding either of them--or any relief pitcher--with a Cy Young would represent a gross misunderstanding of how pitching works.

Johnny Cueto and the Importance of All-Star Selections

One of the more glaring All-Star snubs this year was Cincinnati Reds ace Johnny Cueto, who as of this very moment has a 2.35 ERA in 114.2 innings, which is very good. Rather than picking Cueto to his team, NL manager Tony La Russa instead chose Jonathan Papelbon, who has inferior numbers in far fewer innings (as a reliever). It was a baffling decision, and one that looks a little shady considering Cueto's role in an ugly brawl between the Reds and LaRussa's Cardinals a few years back. Was LaRussa getting revenge by keeping Cueto from his rightful spot on the All-Star team? Not according to what LaRussa said:

"If [Reds manager] Dusty [Baker] had been more interested in Cueto being on the team, then he wouldn't be pitching him on Sunday."

LaRussa's excuse: the old rule that pitchers starting the Sunday before the All-Star Break are ineligible to pitch in the game. The problem with that: the rule was changed this year. Pitchers who start on Sunday can be named to the game, and even pitch an inning. Oops.

So, Johnny Cueto lost his rightful designation as an All-Star EITHER because Tony LaRussa is acting on an old grudge OR Tony LaRussa did not have a complete grasp of the All-Star selection rules. That seems...unfair.

But not to Jon Heyman. He writes:

"N.L. manager Tony La Russa doesn't hold a grudge against the Reds. And even if he does, I can't say I entirely blame him.

Johnny Cueto was deserving of making the team based on his first half, but if Reds manager Dusty Baker is correct that La Russa didn't pick Cueto or second baseman Brandon Phillips because those two players played significant roles in a noted brawl between the Cardinals and Reds, well, so be it. Picking All-Stars is one of the benefits of winning the World Series.

If La Russa recalls that Cueto didn't just play a significant role in the brawl (as Baker characterized it), but actually kicked ex-Cardinals catcher Jason LaRue in the head, causing LaRue to have a concussion and to have to retire, well maybe Cueto should think twice before behaving that way."

That's right. As Cueto's foot was in the air, flying toward Jason LaRue's head, he should have paused and thought to himself, "Wait. Hang on a tick. What if, in a few years, I'm up for a spot in the All-Star Game, and the guy in charge of deciding whether or not I make it turns out to be the manager of the team whose catcher I'm about to clobber, and that manager will keep me from pitching in this future hypothetical All-Star Game because of a petty, long-standing grudge?" Come on. No one's saying that kicking LaRue in the head is acceptable behavior. But Cueto was in a brawl with a bunch of other players, from both teams. I'm guessing none of those other players involved that day were denied from All-Star Games. Punishments were handed down by MLB authorities. That should be the end of the matter. It's ridiculous to suggest that Cueto should still be paying for that day years later, especially at the hands of a retired manager entrusted with objectively choosing the most worthy All-Star participants.

Of course, I don't think LaRussa left Cueto off the roster as revenge. I think it's totally within the realm of possibility that the guy didn't know the Sunday rule had changed. But Heyman seems convinced that this whole operation is a "revenge is a dish best served cold" thing, so here we are.

"La Russa didn't suggest he was paying Cueto back for LaRue, nor would I expect him to. But it's a hard thing to forget.

To summarize, Cueto has won no World Series and caused one Cardinals concussion. What should he expect?"

To be judged fairly on the basis of merit alone? To be properly recognized for his accomplishments in 2012?  And docking points from Cueto for not winning a title yet ranks pretty high on the Crazy Scale, since Cueto hasn't even spent five years in the majors yet. And hang on, take a step back: since when is winning a World Series part of the criteria for All-Star Game selections, anyway? (answer: never.) This is lunacy.

"Apparently, he expects to be on the team. I see on the Internet where Cueto might challenge his non-selection, citing the fact La Russa had Cueto's pitching schedule wrong in explaining his omission. Here's my take: Suck it up, Johnny. Try to win a title this year, then wait 'for Dusty to take you next year."

Again, with the title. Why, suddenly, is Johnny Cueto the only player in baseball who needs to win a World Series to warrant an appearance in the All-Star Game?

In a perfect world, none of this would matter much. It should just be an entertaining diversion and an interesting side-plot for the All-Star break. I couldn't care less about it. But here's the thing: to Jon Heyman, All-Star selections actually matter. A lot. He votes for the Hall of Fame, and actually uses figures like "X Number of Times He Was An All-Star" to judge which players he votes for. It apparently doesn't matter that this very article, written by Heyman himself, shows how flawed that "statistic" is. He thinks it's okay that a deserving All-Star, like Cueto, can be denied that designation just because the manager of the defending World Series champion has a bone to pick, or just because the manager of the defending World Series champion isn't entirely familiar with the selection rules. Immediately, we see that "Number of Times He Was An All-Star" is a "statistic" so completely subject to personal bias and randomness that it's almost useless when it comes to building Hall of Fame cases.

And yet...I know that in a few months, Jack Morris will once again appear on the Hall of Fame ballot, and Jon Heyman will be writing an article that vehemently claims Jack Morris deserves to be a Hall of Famer because he started three All-Star Games, and was an All-Star a total of five times. And Jon Heyman will try to convince me that those numbers actually mean something. And I will think back to this article, when Jon Heyman tried to convince me that Johnny Cueto, of the 2.35 ERA, didn't deserve an All-Star spot because of an old brawl and a grudge. And then I will remember just how subjective, unfair, and utterly useless the "Number of Times He Was An All-Star" statistic really is.