Rookie of the Year Award

[ORS]

Ethier had 396 AB last year. Broxton pitched only 13 2/3 innings in 2005' date=' but he pitched 76 1/3 innings last year to put him in consideration. [/quote']

I know. When the question of their eligibility first came up, your response was about it being Ethier's first time up. I can asssure you, SOTKs was asking the question because he wasn't sure if they had played enough to not be eligible this year. Whether or not last year was Ethier's first year up doesn't answer that question.

[schillingouttheks]

Correct you are, ORS.

 

I had no idea that Ethier got that many ABs last year. Where have I been?

[ORS]

An argument could have been made for Teixeira as well.

How? He created 80 runs while playing at primarily 1B to Berroa's 82 as a SS.

[CrespoBlows]

An argument could have been made for Teixeira as well.

 

Gerut would have been a better choice than Teixeira.

[26 to 6]

I think it's funny how one year, it was ok to be a Japanese rookie when Soriano was up for it against Ichiro, and then it's wrong when Matsui was up for it against Berroa. Be consistent.

 

Personally, I think the award should have an age limit. Although, with all the Latin players coming over and suddenly aging 2 years, it could cause problems.

Absolutely. If I recall correctly, didn't Berroa just barely beat out Matsui? If it werent for the two KC writers who decided to take the rules, specifically that which declared Matsui eligible for the award, into their own hands and [rovide their own ridiculous interpretation of the rule, Hideki Matsui would have won the 2003 Rookie of the Year Award, which he rightfully deserved.

[Rodney Harrison]

How? He created 80 runs while playing at primarily 1B to Berroa's 82 as a SS.

Offensive numbers, for one.

 

Like I said, an argument could have been made for Teixeira and Gerut, who put up similar numbers playing the outfield. And anything voted on by the BBWAA automatically stirs debate.

[Rodney Harrison]

Absolutely. If I recall correctly' date=' didn't Berroa just barely beat out Matsui? If it werent for the two KC writers who decided to take the rules, specifically that which declared Matsui eligible for the award, into their own hands and [rovide their own ridiculous interpretation of the rule, Hideki Matsui would have won the 2003 Rookie of the Year Award, which he rightfully deserved.[/quote']

Berroa won by four points and two first-place votes. It could have gone either way.

[Rodney Harrison]

Correct you are, ORS.

 

I had no idea that Ethier got that many ABs last year. Where have I been?

East Coast?

[jacksonianmarch]

Matsui was the pick. People forget that he was the 5 hitter or higher for us in 3/4 of his AB's. He had over 100 RBIs for a playoff team as well. He wasnt the 6 hitter on a stacked offensive team at that time. I know you like those off the charts stats ORS, but as always, team success typically has as much to do with an award as the player's performance. Strangely, that season was different in that regard. Could have been people not wanting to give a japanese player the ROY every yr since the japanese invasion was increasing, or it could have been a serious dislike of everything yankee since at that time the WS wins wee fresh in everyone's minds and by the end of 03, the yankees had won the AL pennant 6 out of 8 seasons. I dont really care anyway since Matsui has shown he is very much a team oriented player.

[ORS]

Absolutely. If I recall correctly' date=' didn't Berroa just barely beat out Matsui? If it werent for the two KC writers who decided to take the rules, specifically that which declared Matsui eligible for the award, into their own hands and [rovide their own ridiculous interpretation of the rule, Hideki Matsui would have won the 2003 Rookie of the Year Award, which he rightfully deserved.[/quote']

George King saying he doesn't vote for pitchers to keep the MVP from Pedro says "Hi". And, the KC guys, despite their bias, got it right.

[CrespoBlows]

Matsui was the pick. People forget that he was the 5 hitter or higher for us in 3/4 of his AB's. He had over 100 RBIs for a playoff team as well. He wasnt the 6 hitter on a stacked offensive team at that time. I know you like those off the charts stats ORS' date=' but as always, team success typically has as much to do with an award as the player's performance. Strangely, that season was different in that regard. Could have been people not wanting to give a japanese player the ROY every yr since the japanese invasion was increasing, or it could have been a serious dislike of everything yankee since at that time the WS wins wee fresh in everyone's minds and by the end of 03, the yankees had won the AL pennant 6 out of 8 seasons. I dont really care anyway since Matsui has shown he is very much a team oriented player.[/quote']

 

Team success means nothing when you are determining the Rookie of the Year.

[ORS]

Matsui was the pick. People forget that he was the 5 hitter or higher for us in 3/4 of his AB's. He had over 100 RBIs for a playoff team as well. He wasnt the 6 hitter on a stacked offensive team at that time. I know you like those off the charts stats ORS' date=' but as always, team success typically has as much to do with an award as the player's performance. Strangely, that season was different in that regard. Could have been people not wanting to give a japanese player the ROY every yr since the japanese invasion was increasing, or it could have been a serious dislike of everything yankee since at that time the WS wins wee fresh in everyone's minds and by the end of 03, the yankees had won the AL pennant 6 out of 8 seasons. I dont really care anyway since Matsui has shown he is very much a team oriented player.[/quote']

Another load of shite. Team success rarely has impact on the ROY.

 

[table]Year|AL|NL

2001|Suzuki|Pujols

2002|Hinske|Jennings

2003|Berroa|Willis

2004|Crosby|Bay

2005|Gomes|Howard

2006|Verlander|Ramirez[/table]

 

Only 4 of 12 made the postseason. Rah rah, sis-boom bah.....Keep waving those pom poms, won't make Matsui deserving of that award.

[ORS]

Offensive numbers, for one.

 

Like I said, an argument could have been made for Teixeira and Gerut, who put up similar numbers playing the outfield. And anything voted on by the BBWAA automatically stirs debate.

Runs created are the context independent representation of every offensive number. Stolen bases, double plays hit into, total bases, sac flys, sac bunts, walks, everything. So, when Teixeira has 80 RC to Berroa's 82, your claim the offensive numbers make a case for him is incorrect. Once you consider what position the production came from, it only adds to Berroa's case.

 

Here is the defensive spectrum

 

DH - 1B - LF - RF - 3B - CF - 2B - SS - C

 

The further left you are on the spectrum, the easier it is to find production. Teixeira played over 75% of his games as 1B in '03, Berroa played every game as a SS. When the offensive production was marginally the same, whose contribution was more valuable when you consider position?

[Gom]

I have to agree with my nemesis here. Berroa deserved the award over Matsui, and in my opinion as well, Japanese players who play in their major leagues shouldn't be eligible.

[YazsTripleCrown]

I don't think anyone is questioning whether Ethier was brought up for the first time last year. The question posed was' date=' did he extinguish his rookie status, thus making him eligible. When you can still be a rookie next year because you haven't played enough, then you aren't eligible to win the ROY this year. Otherwise, someone could win it twice, theoretically.[/quote']

No one is claiming that Ethier is eligible for the ROY this year. He was a finalist LAST YEAR and yes, he qualified for it last year.

[YazsTripleCrown]

Team success means nothing when you are determining the Rookie of the Year.

 

... unless you are talking about hockey, apparently.

 

Anze Kopitar got robbed this year. Malkin deserved it, but Staal over Kopitar? Give me a break.

[ORS]

No one is claiming that Ethier is eligible for the ROY this year. He was a finalist LAST YEAR and yes' date=' he qualified for it last year.[/quote']

No, nobody did claim that. SOTKs did question whether or not he extinguished his rookie status, though. Rodney replied with last year being Ethier's first year up, which didn't address the issue. That's all.

[riverside sluggers]

Reggie Willits could also be a strong candidate for the AL ROY. For the NL its looking like the Astros' Hunter Pence stands tall

[CrespoBlows]

... unless you are talking about hockey, apparently.

 

Anze Kopitar got robbed this year. Malkin deserved it, but Staal over Kopitar? Give me a break.

 

I completely agree with you.

 

Kopitar - 61 (fewer games played)

Malkin - 85

Staal - 42

 

That's why most awards don't mean s***.

[redsoxrules]

kopitar had a +/- of -12 and staal was at +16

[CrespoBlows]

kopitar had a +/- of -12 and staal was at +16

 

I believe +/- is largely influenced by team success.

 

They scored 227 goals and allowed 283, which is going to skew the stats in favor of Staal.

[redsoxrules]

I believe +/- is largely influenced by team success.

 

They scored 227 goals and allowed 283, which is going to skew the stats in favor of Staal.

 

not really staal +16 was the highest on his team so obviously he was doing something right AND there was 11 penguins that was in the minus

[Moose]

not really staal +16 was the highest on his team so obviously he was doing something right AND there was 11 penguins that was in the minus

 

First, picking the Giants to win the NL West. And now this statement? Sorry, you are one dumbass motherf***ing Canuck. No doot aboot it.

[redsoxrules]

Meh. Kopitar should've finished ahead of Staal in the voting.

 

meh NO

[CrespoBlows]

not really staal +16 was the highest on his team so obviously he was doing something right AND there was 11 penguins that was in the minus

 

Playing next Sidney Crosby will help inflate that number a little bit, don't you think?

 

The Kings had the 26th worst goaltending in the league, and scored 43 fewer goals than the Penguins did. There's a difference of 80 goals, which is going to skew the statistics.

 

The Kings had 22 players in the negative in +/- category.

[Moose]

meh NO

 

Meh yes.

 

+/- ruins a player just because his team (or goalie) isn't good.

[redsoxrules]

Playing next Sidney Crosby will help inflate that number a little bit, don't you think?

 

so how come crosby +/- was lower than staal ?

[Moose]

so how come crosby +/- was lower than staal ?

 

I don't know, maybe special teams affect it?

[CrespoBlows]

so how come crosby +/- was lower than staal ?

 

ATOI

 

Staal - 14:56

Crosby - 20:46

 

If Staal's low TOI is an indicator of the other Penguins, it could mean that Crosby was on the ice more with inferior players, while Staal was on the ice with the best Penguin lineup.

[redsoxrules]

put lidstrom on any hockey team and i guarantee he will have a +/- of at least +20 . A good defensive foward will have a good +/- and a purely offensive foward will have a crappy +/-