Max Scherzer celebrated aboard a boat off the British Virgin Islands, doused by college pals on a floating party.
Rick Porcello enjoyed the moment at his parents’ home in New Jersey, surrounded by family, friends and a few bottles of wine.
As for Justin Verlander, well, fuming supermodel Kate Upton brought the heat for her fiance.
Rotation mates for five seasons in Detroit, the three right-handers topped the Cy Young Award talk Wednesday: Scherzer easily won the NL prize, Porcello edged out Verlander for the AL honor.
“That’s just the weird thing about these,” said Scherzer, who ruled the majors with 284 strikeouts and topped the NL with 20 wins for Washington. “It’s the voting.”
Porcello led baseball with 22 wins for Boston, and had a 3.15 ERA.
Porcello won despite getting just eight of the 30 first-place votes from members of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America — this was the first time the AL Cy winner didn’t get the most firsts.
Verlander went 16-9 with a 2.40 ERA while leading the AL in strikeouts and other categories. He got 14 first-place votes, but didn’t draw as much support across the board — he was left off two ballots, too.
Overall, Porcello won 137- 132 in the second-closest vote since 1970 (Verlander lost by four points to David Price in 2012).
Voters list their five picks in order. A first-place vote is worth seven points, four for second, three for third, two for fourth and one for fifth. Verlander needed to pick up five more points to match Porcello.
Porcello bounced back from going 9-15 in his first season with the Red Sox, finishing 22-4 for the AL East champs.
He shared this last win of 2016 with those who “never wavered” in their support, admitting, “It was hard not to start bawling and crying.”
Cleveland’s Corey Kluber was third and got three first-place votes.

Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less