Like many, I’ve kvetched about the annual awards. I’ve wondered how voters could pass up my guy, not look at the numbers, not do this, that, or the other things, but as a new member of the BBWAA, this year I had to put my money where my mouth is. Now that Chris Coghlan has been named Rookie of the Year, I can explain why my vote for him didn’t count and/or helped hand him the Award.
I spent a lot of time with making my picks for the Rookie of the Year Award. I’ll be honest, I didn’t like what I had to pick from. It was a down year, and the phrase that I kept coming back to is “I don’t want to vote for the next Todd Hollandsworth.” While I understand the RotY is a performance award based on who is the best player in 2009 and not some prospecting exercise, it still bothered me, and I knew that if it was close, that would likely be my deciding factor. If It was merely “who was the rookie who you think will go on to have the best career?” it would have been a toss-up between Tommy Hanson and Andrew McCutchen. Of course, I have a bias against rookie pitchers-they’re injury prone, if you didn’t know-but I like Hanson in a lot of ways. He was an engaging young man, humble yet confident, when I met him at the Bellagio last December. I like his motion and the way he pitches. I really like his results, as do the Braves, but being called up late kept both his raw and advanced numbers down. For me, I just can’t say that 11 wins in 21 starts or nearly five wins of WARP3 is enough, not when there are better options.
At the Pittsburgh ballpark event, I sat down with Shawn Hoffman, John Perrotto, and Eric Seidman, trying to convince myself that J.A. Happ was the right pick. He was well up in VORP, contributed to his team in every phase, and was helping a winning team. Still, he was, I thought, a back-of-the-rotation guy who maxed out, gaining much of the benefit of pitching in front of a solid offense and defense. This was likely his best year, though I’ll wait to see how that turns out. The guy I kept wanting to vote for was Andrew McCutchen. I’d watched him over two seasons in Indianapolis, loved how he’d developed, and liked how he played. He was the best position player eligible, and I think McCutchen is going to be a solid player, if not a star, for a number of years.
In the end, I voted by the numbers. J.A. Happ was the best rookie this season and I ended up giving him my vote for Rookie of the Year. My ballot went Happ, McCutchen, and Hanson. I’m happy with it.
Later on in awards season, I’ll touch on the other award I had a vote for, and explain my selections and Criticize the picks if you want, but in a year where the BBWAA opened up its voting to members they knew might think a little different, I have to feel like it’s a step forward. Now about those Gold Gloves…
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
You may have covered this somewhere, but . . . Am I correct that the BBWAA awards voting is based upon two voters from each MLB city (in each league). If that's correct, what are the cities represented in the BP voting? Also, how many BBWAA members cover the 30 x 2 x 4 = 240 votes for the BBWAA awards? (Seems like no more than 239 if you have two votes this year.)
The problem with W and L for pitchers is not that they are outcome-based, but that more than half of what they measure isn't related to the pitcher you're trying to evaluate. (Specifically, run support and bullpen support. Defense too, but less so.)
If you're going to down-vote a hitter for a .366 BABIP, you have to also be willing to down-vote a pitcher with a .200 BABIP because you don't think the fact that nobody got a hit off him is repeatable.
Statistical analysis is great for predicting how a player or team will perform. And yes, it is important to consider what measures you use to determine value (wins do not accurately measure a players value to a team, OBP does- even if it is a reliant on a high BABIP). All I was saying is that Coghlan should be judged based on the actual value that he provided for his team. If I were a GM, I would take McCutchen over him any day of the week. And honestly, I didn't think Coghlan deserved it (see misterdelaware's post), but I think it is unfair to use this particular style of statistical argument (judging the season's repeatability) to minimize his accomplishments. Absolutely fair to take it into consideration when predicting 2010, but give the guy credit for what he did. I don't really understand why this is "outdated thinking".
Also, it is Will's vote, so he can use any personal criteria in-line with the BBWAA's guidelines that he wants, so there's not really a "fairness" argument involved. Some people use the same personal criteria to never vote for an MVP on a losing team or who is not a pitcher. If Will bases his ROY on avoiding the next Hollandsworth, I think that's an improvement.
Personally, I find the Hollandsworth comparison a bit harsh since he was a major leaguer and contributed for a few years and some ROY don't even do that much.