Are We Overlooking Dan Haren?

Why do we keep awarding Tim Lincecum the Cy Young award? By we, I mean writers across the world, including those at ESPN, Sports Illustrated, and us at Bleacher Report.

Is Tim Lincecum really having a better season than Dan Haren? No, the numbers (of course) do not lie:

So what does this mean? This isn't the MVP award. The voters don't choose the Cy Young award winner based on whether or not the player's team is going to the playoffs—we saw this last year when Lincecum won the award, despite the Giants being 18 games under the .500 mark.

So are we punishing Dan Haren because he plays on a worse team than Tim Lincecum? If we are, we shouldn't be, because we didn't hold Tim Lincecum to that standard last year.

The point is that we look at the wrong statistical categories for pitchers. Are wins and strikeouts all that matter for a pitcher to be effective? No, they do not come near to telling the whole story of a pitcher's effectiveness. Look at Tim Wakefield or Matt Garza, and you'll see these stats don't tell the whole story.

But I digress. If the season were to end today, Dan Haren should be awarded the Cy Young. Yes, Haren has five losses, but it's not his fault. In 18 starts, Haren has kept his team in the game 17 times.

So what is the possible justification for Tim Lincecum as the Cy Young winner? I'm not trying to take anything away from Lincecum. He's a great pitcher and one of my favorites. But he's second to Dan Haren right now.

Lincecum is a workhorse, but Haren is more of a workhorse. Lincecum keeps his team in the game, but Haren has kept his team in more games. Lincecum is a strikeout machine, but Haren has also thrown lots of strikeouts and less than half of Timmy's walks.

Haren has a better WHIP, batting average against, and ERA, which are the best measures of a pitcher's efficacy. He doesn't have the wins, but it's not his fault. Switch Haren and Lincecum's positions, and Haren would have the wins.