It says plenty more against the Mets that they squandered theirs and the league's best pitcher the way they did this year, even more so than what it said that the Mariners squandered Felix Hernandez in 2010, when Hernandez won the Cy Young Award with only thirteen wins. Hernandez, too, was light years better on the mound than his won-lost record shows for that season, and just like with deGrom this year the Cy Young voters were wise enough to look at the pitcher's actual whole performance instead of the wins for which his teams deprived him of credit.
I understand the argument for DeGrom based on metrics. Still, I think there's a difference between a great pitcher who experienced misfortune and a pitcher who actually functioned like an ace. Nola, at 17 - 6, stopped Phillies losing streaks and inspired the Phillies as a team to play better - including much better defensively, thanks for the stat - than when other pitchers were on the mound. Yes, that's an old-school approach to evaluating a great season, and maybe you're right that an individual award of this type should be based on metrics, not the degree to which a pitcher in fact contributed to his team's success.
But it's difficult for me to see how DeGrom was more valuable to his team last year than Nola was. DeGrom's record was, to be sure, somewhat better than the awful Mets, but Nola elevated his team on the days he pitched to world-beaters. Until at least mid August, the Phillies were in contention for the division crown, while the Mets didn't play a meaningful game all year. Nola pitched his best when the games mattered most, including in two thrilling matchups against Scherzer.
