One problem I saw when I read the write up is that even though there is a difference between teams in regard to performance level, there are also differences within a team’s performance level throughout the season, so while it is true that the White Sox have been a good team all season, they have been a better team earlier in the season and have regressed somewhat as the season progressed (as an example), Same goes for Oakland, and even Boston. So to simply throw out the games played by teams that both Lee and Halladay pitched would be ignoring the variance in performance at different points in the season for these team.

(Yes, I have given this comment a title.)

But there’s simply no comparison between the overall Quality of Opposition the two pitchers have had to deal with.

This is a dramatic and ridiculous overstatement.

I understand why they want to talk about quality of opposing starters and overall teams, because of its impact on W-L record — but while I understand it, I’m solidly in the camp that isn’t very interested in that subject.

Let’s talk about the opponents’ runs per game, though — 4.58 for Lee, 4.81 for Halladay. We’ll leave aside the fact that a tiny piece of that difference is because Lee’s opponents have faced Lee, 2.41 RA, and Halladay’s have faced Halladay, 3.10. The effect truly is tiny, I just felt like mentioning it.

Anyway, runs per game is very close to runs per 9 innings — sometimes a club doesn’t bat in the 9th, but then again sometimes it plays extras, so we’ll just go with 9 innings per game. The difference between the two “opponent pools” is 0.23 runs per game, so over 230 IP …

0.23 × 230 IP / 9 innings-per-game = about 6 runs

Six runs? I’m missing the part where there’s “simply no comparison.”

Lee’s opponents have scored 4.58 runs per game, which means that over Lee’s 201.2 IP, you would expect them to score 102.6 runs. They have in fact scored 54 runs against Lee, 51 earned and 3 unearned.

Halladay’s opponents have scored 4.81 runs per game, which means that over Halladay’s 218 innings, you would expect them to score 116.5 runs. They have in fact scored 75 runs, 64 earned and 11 unearned.

So Lee has allowed 48.6 runs fewer than expected against his specific opposition, and Halladay has allowed 41.5 runs fewer than expected against his specific opposition. So I’m missing the part where this shows that Lee has accomplished less.

Halladay has been a great, great pitcher for a while, and he does some very impressive things that real aficionados love — like, pitching gobs of complete games. There is a natural inclination to downgrade what appears to be a fluke season for Lee and to elevate Halladay in comparison. I understand that, and I have those impulses myself. Halladay has been damned impressive for several years and deserves a Cy Young of his own, maybe more than any other pitcher.

Here’s the dirty little secret getting ignored here — maybe you noticed it above — the unearned runs. One of the first things advanced statistical students of the game figure out is that it makes more sense to look at total Runs Allowed rather than just Earned Runs Allowed — it correlates better year-to-year and with other defense-independent stats. The simple way to put it is that it’s more accurate to make the pitcher totally responsible for unearned runs than totally not responsible.

The ERA race is relatively close — 2.64 to 2.28 — and you can’t have Lee’s W-L record without generous run support, so again, there’s a natural suspicion that Halladay has really been better. But when you look at the RA race, it ain’t all that close — Lee leads 2.41 to Halladay’s 3.10 — a margin of 0.69, exactly triple the difference in the quality of opposition touted in this article.

If we’re going to look at a difference of 0.23 runs-per-game and say that there’s “simply no comparison,” then what do we say when there’s a difference of 0.69 runs per nine innings?

I’ll tell you what we say: There’s simply no question who deserves the Cy Young.

Blue Jays fans have as much invested in Halladay getting some hardware as Tribe fans have in Lee winning the CYA, and for essentially the same reason in this lost season. The bottom line is that Lee can’t control when he pitches or who he pitches against – if Wedge knew 2008 Cliff would be so unlike Spring Training Cliff or 2007 Cliff, he’d have a schedule a lot like Halladay’s. This particular “analysis” shows a bit of desperation in the stat-spinning. Against quality opposition, both of these guys have been pretty good, although Lee has given up 12 fewer ER in six more innings (each 8 total starts):

ANA Lee 1-0, 2.00 ERA; Halladay 1-0, 2.57
CHW Lee 1-0, 0.53; Halladay 1-0, 1.23
MIN Lee 2-1, 2.35; Halladay 1-0, 5.40
TBR Lee 2-0, 1.38; Halladay 2-3, 4.11
Total Lee 6-1, 1.60; Halladay 5-3, 3.70

Cliff’s still waiting for his first start against Boston this year, while Halladay is 2-1, 2.10 in three outings.

Halladay has better IF defense.

This thing is QED