keyboard_arrow_uptop

Mike Trout won the Sporting News Rookie of the Year award, which is voted on by players. There were 92 votes. Trout got…88 of them. Four players voted for somebody other than Trout for Rookie of the Year. 

Two went to Darvish. I'm willing to allow that some players simply don't follow baseball, aren't really that into baseball, don't really know much about baseball, and only play it because of the money and fame. Those guys might genuinely look at a pitcher's stats, and a hitter's stats, and have no idea how to square the two. They might see that Yu Darvish got a bunch of "wins," and that Mike Trout didn't get any "wins," and figure, hey, wins are the name of the game. The name of the game is actually baseball, but these guys are confused about the name of the game. Anyway, so they vote for Darvish. It's lololololol but whatever. 

But two went to Cespedes. And that one's harder to fathom, not because Trout is better than Cespedes (he's better than Darvish, and everybody) but because I can't figure out what those two votes would be representing. What did those two voters look at to convince themselves? I'm truly, truly curious about this. So OK since they're not looking at WARP

HR: Trout 30, Cespedes 23
RBI: Trout 83, Cespedes 82
Runs: Trout 129, Cespedes 70
Stolen bases: Trout 49, Cespedes 16
Hits: Trout 182, Cespedes 142
Average: Trout .326, Cespedes .292
OBP: Trout .399, Cespedes .356
SLG: Trout .564, Cespedes .505
Doubles: Trout 27, Cespedes 25
Triples: Trout 8, Cespedes 5
Games played: Trout 139, Cespdes 129
Outfield assists: Cespedes 9, Trout 3

So there are two possibilities: these two players voted exclusively on outfield assists. Or they (and the two Darvish voters) are the four hitters who had home runs stolen by Trout this year, and they're still bitter. The only two possibilities. Don't leave your other possibilities in the comments, because there are none*.

*unless there's some rule that players can't vote for their own teammates; checking on that now, though the Sporting News article itself expresses surprise that it wasn't a unanimous vote