My Letter To Patrick Reusse
Sent on Monday, 10/3

Dear Mr. Reusse,

You are the second Star Tribune writer in the last week to make an argument that seems to be a logical fallacy. After Joe Christensen, you have made the syllogism that a) Johan Santana is the best pitcher in the Major Leagues (thus, the AL as a matter of course), b) that Santana has pitched better for the complete season than any other pitcher in the American League, and better in the last month of the season than any other pitcher in the American League, and c) that Santana will not, and more importantly SHOULD not win the Cy Young award. If the Cy Young is not about being the best pitcher and having results commensurate with that ability, then what is the purpose of the award?

Wins are indeed an important statistic; they determine which teams play into October and which teams go home. They do not demonstrate a level of performance for a pitcher. Bartolo Colon has more wins because his team has given him more run support and, perhaps, more bullpen support. He should be awarded for his team's success, and he will be, as he is going to the postseason. But his individual performance does not approximate Santana's. Baseball Prospectus tracks a stat that measures value added by a pitcher adjusted for neutral support. Santana has added 7.6 wins over a replacement player, while Colon has added 6.6, a deficit amounting to about 15%. Why would you vote for a pitcher who is 85% as effective as another just based on the rest of his team's performance?

I believe you have voted irresponsibly.

Andrew Berg