Why did Roger Clemens win the CY Young Award in 2004 over Randy Johnson? (Stats Provided)?

It's pretty obvious: Two more wins, TEN FEWER LOSSES. Not saying Clemens deserved it more, but that's why.

Johnson was on Arizona they lost 111 games that year right or wrong that was the biggest factor Houston went into second round before losing. Unless a Pitcher totally blows away all other competition he will not get needed votes. 16-14 2.60 ERA is not blowing everyone away so by default they took Clemens right or wrong last place teams players get less votes when it comes to CY or MVP awards. I think it is remarkable he finished 2 ND means voters did look into his true value as a CY candidate.

Because writers are not that smart when naming the Cy Young winners. Losses shouldn't be a factor in figuring out who the CYA goes to. He can't control the losses. Yankees had a better offense than the D-backs so that helped Clemens gain more wins and less losses. Can't say the same for Johnson. Johnson should have definitely won the Cy Young.

16-14.

That might not have been his fault.

Clemens WHIP was also 1.157 compared to Johnson's .900.

Clemens BB/9 was 3.3 compared to Johnson's 1.6.

Clemens K/9 was 9.2 to Johnson's 10.6.

Looks like Randy got snubbed.

@ LP Fanaddict. I don't know. Probably because of his 15-7, 225.1 IP, 2.48 ERA, 261 Ks, 10 HR, 1.05 WHIP, 10.42 K/9? Obviously he deserved it and so did Johnson.

The writers were obviously going by wins and losses which is a horrible way to defind the best pitcher.

The voters must have really looked at losses. However, you did leave out some key stats, such as WHIP, AVG, and HR.

No one said the writers were smart. I think they over-weighed the win percentage too much in that voting.

Clemens was juiced. He wouldn't have done that well if he wasn't.

Why did Tim Lincecum win it in 2009?