Clayton Kershaw: Crackerjacks 2014 NL Cy Young Winner

Sep 24, 2014; Los Angeles, CA, USA; Los Angeles Dodgers starting pitcher Clayton Kershaw (22) pitches in the eighth inning against the San Francisco Giants at Dodger Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Robert Hanashiro-USA TODAY Sports

This was not the only unanimous winner from the Crackerjacks. But speaking on behalf of myself and likely the other guys as well, voting Clayton Kershaw as the National League Cy Young Award winner was the easiest decision that we had to make.

No, that’s not a knock on Johnny Cueto, who all of us voted as the runner up. It’s not a knock on Adam Wainwright, who all but one of us felt belonged in third place.

Kershaw simply had one of the best seasons since 1968’s Year of the Pitcher, headlined by Bob Gibson‘s 1.12 ERA for the St. Louis Cardinals and Denny McLain‘s 31 wins for the Detroit Tigers.

You likely know, or at least have a good sense of what Kershaw did, but it never hurts to put those numbers on display. So, here they are.

[table id=1273 /]

Dominant. Nothing less than that.

Here’s the scary thing. It could have — or really should have — been even better. It’s a long season, so it’s hard for all of us to remember every game. Fortunately, Jeff Passan from Yahoo Sports has us covered.

In Kershaw’s third start back from an early season injury, he had the kind of outing normally reserved for the game’s worst pitchers. On that fateful day in May, Kershaw went 1.2 innings, allowing six hits, two walks, and seven earned runs to of all teams to of all teams, the Arizona Diamondbacks.

What did that outing to do his ERA? It added 30 points. H/T to Passan for doing that math. Without that one inning, Kershaw’s ERA would have been even better.

Also, remember that he didn’t pitch at all after the Australian opener on March 22 and May 6. So, he lost’s probably 4-5 starts of strikeouts, possible wins, and just overall dominant pitching. Even when he returned, his first few outings were good, but not great.

The numbers that he actually produced were frightening. When we consider that they realistically could have been better — maybe much better — it’s a whole new word that’s yet to be invented.

If we’re thinking about inventing words to describe something, it means it was historically good, or historically bad. In this case, it was historically good and a very easy vote.