SU is all in on the sabremetrics stuff in baseball and how what you see is not always what you get. Rick Porcello of the Red Sox was 22-4 this year – he had a career year. Justin Verlander was 16 – 9 with a ton of strikeouts. Very few pitchers ever have had a winning percentage like Porcello and his ERA is just a tad higher than Verlander’s (3.15 vs. 3.04). So, why was the voting so close and why did so many sports writers vote for Verlander for 1st place?
I know Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young one year with a record of 13-12 and that wins and losses at some point are outside of the pitcher’s control. And I suppose Porcello got a ton of run support this year. However, his ERA is right there with Verlander’s and he won 6 more games.
SU asks: what is the rationale here and why was the voting this close?
Sports Update Intergalactic 
I don’t know, whenever I am unsure of a baseball award, I always look to Kate Upton for an objective opinion, and she said Verlander should have won, so I don’t know what you’re talking about…
No problem with the outcome at all. 22 wins is good enough for me. Verlander had a great year but with 16 wins you need to be much better in every stat than the guy with 22. As you point out, he isn’t so Porcello is a fine winner. What’s odd here is the voting. How the voters seemed to have looked at things so differently. More voters had Verlander as their first pick yet some didn’t have him at all. I wonder if the Russians are involved.
Call Mke Francessa or ask your wife….
I am sure the guys who left Verlander off their ballots
completely figured he has Kate Upton, a Cy Young would just be an embarrassment of riches.