Clearly the writers did value Colon’s win total. But Santana was the far better pitcher. The only thing Colon had going for him is the ALCS runner up Angels were better than a Twins team that didn’t make the post season at all. But Colon wasn’t the difference. The Angels were 73-56 in games Colon didn’t even appear in; the Twins were 59-70 when Santana didn’t pitch.
The problem with MVP comparisons is the interpretation of that award. What does “valuable” mean? To many, it means biggest contributor to his team’s success. And that means the team has to have some success to contribute to. If so, players like Andre Dawson and Alex Rodriguez, who both won the award for last place teams, make no sense. What did either contribute to? In both cases, their teams could have finished last without them. But Cy Young has no such ambiguity; it just goes to the best pitcher of the year. So team success should be irrelevant. And if team success is irrelevant, team stats like “wins” shouldn’t matter. Pitchers like Santana and Félix Hernandez were big factors in changing this perception with BBWAA as they de-emphasized the win stat when determining awards.
Of course, this doesn’t mean they collectively replaced it with WAR. Some probably did. But some writers are like you and very hesitant with these fad stats that often get replaced quickly.
To me, the only argument for the wins stat is it’s been there all along and everyone can relate to it. It has its uses, but it used to be relied on much more. In the das before ERA, that made a lot of sense. But I still think it need not be emphasized…