More Writers Standing up for there opinion...

tim_uwrf · 11-23-2003, 06:39 AM

I felt that Gagne was probably the best bet for Cy Young, but again, two writers left him off there ballot. I think this is good for baseball and awards. Same thing happened with Matsui, and same thing happened here. This should make baseball review the award defenitions, i hope anyway (Be sure to check out the last line in his column)

--------------
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/column...son&id=1667569
--------------

Cy Young Rumblings
After all the furor over two writers leaving Hideki Matsui off their rookie-of-the-year ballot, did anyone notice there were also two who left Eric Gagne off their National League Cy Young ballot?

Gagne got 28 of the 32 first-place votes. But the Miami Herald's Clark Spencer put Jason Schmidt, Mark Prior and Russ Ortiz in the 1-2-3 spots on his ballot, over Gagne. And the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Terence Moore went Prior-Schmidt-Ortiz.

Both Spencer and Moore told Rumblings they weren't trying to make a case that relievers shouldn't be eligible for the Cy Young. They just give heavy extra credits to starters who have great years with much heavier workloads.

"I do have a preference for starters over closers, primarily because I view the closer to be a specialist, much like the placekicker is in football," Spencer said. "While Gagne saved 55 games, he saved them for fellow pitchers -- many of them starters, I would presume -- who acquired the leads by working through the opposing order several times before turning the ball over to him to face three, four or five batters."

"I wouldn't call this a protest vote," Moore said. "I just think it's more of a starting pitcher's award than it is a reliever's award. It's almost like with the MVP, trying to decide whether it's the most 'valuable' or the most 'outstanding' player. It's not stated specifically, so it becomes objective. And in my mind, there should be an overwhelming emphasis on starting pitchers."

We actually agree with that emphasis. We just think Gagne had a season so dominating, you have to throw normal assumptions in the nearest dumpster. But if it means anything, virtually all of the other relief pitchers who won Cy Youngs had to fight the same battle.

Of the six previous closers who won Cy Youngs over the last quarter-century, only one -- Rollie Fingers in 1981 -- made it onto every ballot.

heres the last line

COMMISSIONER SELIG ADDS INCENTIVE TO STEROID BAN
League with fewest All-Stars testing positive gets home-field advantage in World Series.

LOL

crackpott · 11-23-2003, 03:28 PM

I don't think people would have a problem with those ballots, as you can make a valid case for not putting Gagne on (I wouldn't have.) whereas with Matsui, they're just being stupid and trying to protest the definition of a rookie.

dougaiton · 11-23-2003, 03:41 PM

I agree Crackpott. These guys decided, using the official classification of who was eligible (i.e. pitchers), on who they thought was most valuable. The other two, in the Matsui case, ignored the official classification and created their own, which allowed them to exclude a candidate who otherwise would have made their list.

I'm not sure what MLB has done wrong (for once) here, or what they should rethink. I didn't think Gagne deserved the Cy Young, because to me I believe its harder to pitch 200 great innings than 60 'perfect' ones. However, I would have had to consider him even if you probably couldn't convince me otherwise. Unless MLB gives you a formula you have to use for deciding how to vote for guys, then subjective decisions on the quality of candidates are always going to be there. I ahve no doubt Gange would have made the top 50 pitchers on these guys lists, wherease Matsui wouldn;t have made the top 500 rookies of the year on those ROY voters as they had artificially excluded him from the process.

Mel_Ott · 11-24-2003, 01:46 PM

I've begun to wonder seriously if MLB leaves its guidelines for the Cy Young, ROY, and MVP intentionally vague so as to stimulate interest and debate. It wouldn't be too hard to come up with some kind of static formula that could be used for these awards, although I'm sure there would be a great deal of argument about what specific formula was used.

My guess is that MLB wants there to be disagreement about e.g. the Cy Young, or MVP, because it keeps people talking about baseball. Which is fine by me; but I wonder if that makes the dweebs who left Matsui off their AL ROY ballots more or less detestable.

11-23-2003, 06:39 AM	#1
tim_uwrf Hall Of Famer Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Field of Dreams Posts: 1,998	More Writers Standing up for there opinion... I felt that Gagne was probably the best bet for Cy Young, but again, two writers left him off there ballot. I think this is good for baseball and awards. Same thing happened with Matsui, and same thing happened here. This should make baseball review the award defenitions, i hope anyway (Be sure to check out the last line in his column) -------------- http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/column...son&id=1667569 -------------- Cy Young Rumblings After all the furor over two writers leaving Hideki Matsui off their rookie-of-the-year ballot, did anyone notice there were also two who left Eric Gagne off their National League Cy Young ballot? Gagne got 28 of the 32 first-place votes. But the Miami Herald's Clark Spencer put Jason Schmidt, Mark Prior and Russ Ortiz in the 1-2-3 spots on his ballot, over Gagne. And the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Terence Moore went Prior-Schmidt-Ortiz. Both Spencer and Moore told Rumblings they weren't trying to make a case that relievers shouldn't be eligible for the Cy Young. They just give heavy extra credits to starters who have great years with much heavier workloads. "I do have a preference for starters over closers, primarily because I view the closer to be a specialist, much like the placekicker is in football," Spencer said. "While Gagne saved 55 games, he saved them for fellow pitchers -- many of them starters, I would presume -- who acquired the leads by working through the opposing order several times before turning the ball over to him to face three, four or five batters." "I wouldn't call this a protest vote," Moore said. "I just think it's more of a starting pitcher's award than it is a reliever's award. It's almost like with the MVP, trying to decide whether it's the most 'valuable' or the most 'outstanding' player. It's not stated specifically, so it becomes objective. And in my mind, there should be an overwhelming emphasis on starting pitchers." We actually agree with that emphasis. We just think Gagne had a season so dominating, you have to throw normal assumptions in the nearest dumpster. But if it means anything, virtually all of the other relief pitchers who won Cy Youngs had to fight the same battle. Of the six previous closers who won Cy Youngs over the last quarter-century, only one -- Rollie Fingers in 1981 -- made it onto every ballot. heres the last line COMMISSIONER SELIG ADDS INCENTIVE TO STEROID BAN League with fewest All-Stars testing positive gets home-field advantage in World Series. LOL

11-23-2003, 03:28 PM	#2
crackpott Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 2,961	I don't think people would have a problem with those ballots, as you can make a valid case for not putting Gagne on (I wouldn't have.) whereas with Matsui, they're just being stupid and trying to protest the definition of a rookie. __________________ Abandoned Planet - Check it out. The photos don't suck anymore.

11-23-2003, 03:41 PM	#3
dougaiton Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Location: Posts: 3,414	I agree Crackpott. These guys decided, using the official classification of who was eligible (i.e. pitchers), on who they thought was most valuable. The other two, in the Matsui case, ignored the official classification and created their own, which allowed them to exclude a candidate who otherwise would have made their list. I'm not sure what MLB has done wrong (for once) here, or what they should rethink. I didn't think Gagne deserved the Cy Young, because to me I believe its harder to pitch 200 great innings than 60 'perfect' ones. However, I would have had to consider him even if you probably couldn't convince me otherwise. Unless MLB gives you a formula you have to use for deciding how to vote for guys, then subjective decisions on the quality of candidates are always going to be there. I ahve no doubt Gange would have made the top 50 pitchers on these guys lists, wherease Matsui wouldn;t have made the top 500 rookies of the year on those ROY voters as they had artificially excluded him from the process. __________________ tThis shower of clowns My park-adjusted, historically split Born in '69 league file! (also at Joe's wonderful site +BBSC)

11-24-2003, 01:46 PM	#4
Mel_Ott Registered User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Where the deer and the antelope play Posts: 924	I've begun to wonder seriously if MLB leaves its guidelines for the Cy Young, ROY, and MVP intentionally vague so as to stimulate interest and debate. It wouldn't be too hard to come up with some kind of static formula that could be used for these awards, although I'm sure there would be a great deal of argument about what specific formula was used. My guess is that MLB wants there to be disagreement about e.g. the Cy Young, or MVP, because it keeps people talking about baseball. Which is fine by me; but I wonder if that makes the dweebs who left Matsui off their AL ROY ballots more or less detestable. __________________ jgross's worst nightmare!!!!111 Owner, Sin City Swingers, OBTL