David Price Wins American League Cy Young Award
David Price won the American League Cy Young Award on Wednesday, denying Justin Verlander in his repeat campaign.
UPDATE: Wednesday, November 14 at 6:58 p.m. ET by Ian Hanford
Price announced his gratitude to the Twitter world after winning the award:
He should be thanking every voter as well. According to Major League Baseball, this race was incredibly close:
MLB (@MLB) November 14, 2012
---End of Update---
MLB Network had the news via Twitter:
Price beat out Verlander and Los Angeles Angels right-hander Jered Weaver to take home the honor.
Despite missing the postseason, Price's 20-5 record and AL-leading 2.56 ERA was good enough to take home the hardware. He also had a 6.4 WAR rating, which was the highest in Tampa Bay Rays history, according to ESPN.
Considering that the Detroit Tigers made it to the World Series, Price receiving this award over Verlander could be viewed as a bit of a surprise. The Tigers' ace had another stellar season and appeared in prime position to capture his second consecutive Cy Young honor.
However, Verlander's 17-8 season wasn't good enough. His 2.64 ERA was close to Price's, but the vote was close as well. If you don't think a player whose team made the playoffs should get any special consideration then the voting probably makes sense to you, but that's now how it usually works.
Jered Weaver was an afterthought as well. A 20-5 season, with a 2.81 ERA, wasn't good enough to earn the lanky righty one of the AL's highest individual honors.
Perhaps the most interesting though is Fernando Rodney. The Rays closer earned 48 saves this season and posted a 0.60 ERA—the lowest for a reliever in baseball history. He wasn't named a finalist, but he did receive one first-place vote and finished in fifth-place overall.
This is Price's first Cy Young Award. At 27 years old, he'd already established himself as one of the most dynamic pitchers in the game, and this seals the deal.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?