Traditionally, what people look for in a Cy Young winner is a "dream season," combining all of these factors: a lot of wins, a great W-L %, an excellent ERA, a lot of innings, plus the indicators of dominance--strikeouts, WHIP, etc. Carpenter had all of these.
It's true that RC is hurt by the 13-8, but those are the breaks. After all, this is not the "Addie Joss Award."
Can't wait to here from these guys all the reasons that Pujols doesn't deserve to be MVP.
Carpenter had a streak similar to a streak Bob Gibson had in '68. Clemens had a season similar to the season Gibson had in '68. Carpenter had a great year - better than many Cy Yong award winners - but Clemens had a historic year that was obscured by the fact his team didn't score runs for him.
The fact is Clemens' accomplishments shouldn't have been obscured - in fact they weren't really obscured - they were ignored by people who make their living analyzing and writing about baseball and who should have known better.
If you want the Cy Young award to go to the best pitcher, give it to the best pitcher, be it Roger Clemens or Addie Joss. (Context is important too - Addie Joss' 1.89 ERA is a bit less impressive when you consider the league ERA during his career was 2.72.)
I will say that the Addie Joss argument did change my thinking some - maybe it does make sense to give a little more weight to wins than otherwise warranted just because the award is named after someone whose main claim to fame is 511 wins.
I'll quit complaining about Clemens not winning if you'll at least let me continue to whine about Johan losing out to fatboy Colon