McCutchen is Baseball America's Rookie of the Year

by Brakeman8 on Oct 26, 2009 4:59 PM EDT Comment 30 comments

Baseball America has named Pittsburgh Pirates' outfielder Andrew McCutchen it's 2009 Major League Rookie Of The Year. McCutchen is on the cover of the magazine and is joined on the All-Rookie team by first baseman Garrett Jones. It's nice to see these two get some national recognition. I'm excited to see what these two can do over a full season in 2010.

UPDATE by Charlie: Pedro Alvarez was recently on BA's cover as well.

0 recs | Comment 30 comments | Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Wait...We ACTUALLY WON SOMETHING?

"Polamalu’s lineage can be traced through several roots. Chuck Norris mated with an Amazon Queen, and on the other side, Tony Hawk mated with Mother Nature. The two children of these spawned and fused in a tantric love session to create Troy Polamalu. The mother however died as he tore through the birth canal with a spin move."
Mechem on the roots of Troy Polamalu

by WVPiratesfan on Oct 26, 2009 5:28 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Yeah.

Kind of like how Cam Bonifay was executive of the year in 1997.

by IAPiratesFan on Oct 26, 2009 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

From all the accounts of Pittsburgh media types, Bonifay was actually a pretty good talent evaluator who kind of got hamstrung by McClatchy into signing cheap talent and keeping “name” players like Jason Kendall on the team.

I have to say, I buy that. As much as we make fun of the five-year plan, it was working pretty well until the time came to increase spending.

www.sixtyftsixin.com

by Nate Rose on Oct 27, 2009 12:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well the problem was the spending was done to appease fans I think more than to award money based on true stats/performance.

The contract kendall got from us was not worth it, we should have traded him or let him walk at the time we decided to hand him that huge contract. In addition to few other blunders.

by lfhlaw on Oct 27, 2009 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ROY

The thing I like best about the Rookie of the Year award is that I think there is less politics and philosophy involved in the award opposed to the Most Valuable Player or Cy Young. The MVP and Cy Young are forever being debated. Does it mean Most Valuable Player to your team ? To the league ? What if the best player is on a losing team, do they deserve it ? Should a pitcher win MVP ? Should a relief pitcher win the Cy Young ? Just a whole bunch of debates. ROY seems a bit more cut and dried. Who was the rookie with the best stats ?

"Baseball is better than football. Think about it, eighty degrees, a cold beer and a short-sleeve shirt is better than 30 degrees, a hip flask and six layers of clothes under a lap blanket. Take your pick: suntan or frostbite. " - Thomas Boswell

by Ketcham Bruce on Oct 27, 2009 4:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

And all of those debates are stupid.

The definition of “value” is explicitly stated in the ballot instructions for MVP, and the only reason that particular “debate” persists is because certain sportswriters in large markets want an excuse to vote for the hometown guy at the expense of a more deserving player from Flyover Land. The “debates” over pitchers winning the MVP and relievers winning the Cy exist for similar reasons – providing opportunities for sportswriters to not vote for non-preferred but deserving candidates.

by Vlad on Oct 27, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't this how the ballot instructions start?

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team.

by ol Pete on Oct 27, 2009 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Keep going...

A couple of lines down, it says:
“The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2. Number of games played.

3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

4. Former winners are eligible.

5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team."

So the instructions are saying that these things (and only these things) should be considered when picking a MVP, but exactly how they are weighted relative to each other is up to the voter (i.e. whether playing in every game counts for more than being a jerk and a poor sport, etc.).

by Vlad on Oct 27, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't call that explicit

by ol Pete on Oct 29, 2009 8:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It defines a player's value to his team...

…as “strength of offense and defense”. All the arguments about giving extra credit to players from winning teams are based on the premise that good players provide more value to winning teams than losing ones – but this is explicitly contradicted by the definition of value in point #1.

by Vlad on Oct 29, 2009 9:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Beaten to the punch by Vlad

All that those “debates” are for is to justify voting for inferior large market candidates and filling air time.

I once heard something rationalize the Cy Young not going to a relief pitcher because they have the Rolaids Relief Man award…its complete nonsense.

by MrPedriqueIfYoureNasty on Oct 27, 2009 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not an MVP, but...

my favorite award rationalization was the AL ROY in 2003. Ichiro won in 2001 and then two years later they rob Hideki Matsui, with many people stating that he wasn’t technically a rookie since that would be an insult to the Japanese Leagues. But apparently it wasn’t an insult when they handed it to Ichiro. Everyone has their own way of interpreting what an award should be-if you have 40 different voters, chances are you’ll have 40 different interpretations.

by NastyNate82 on Oct 27, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Rockies media and fans are still complaining about Braun

Tulo wuz robbed!

Personally, I don’t really care about any of them other than I hope players on my favorite team come in 2nd as they mean that they will cost more as players. If they’ve signed extensions already, fine.

by ol Pete on Oct 27, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

BA Covers

Actually the cover before was Buster Posey, and before that it was Jason Heyward. I think Alvarez was some time in September/late August.

Great honor for McCutcheon. I feel he deserves the award but wonder if he actually will win it.

I would guess that the bbwaa winner might be Tommy Hanson.

by backtocali on Oct 27, 2009 9:47 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think the BBWAA...

…is likely to be in the bag for Happ, unfortunately.

by Vlad on Oct 27, 2009 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Cutch were on the Phillies or Dodgers, he’d win easily. Sad but true.

by Adam Reynolds on Oct 27, 2009 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, no doubt.

They would’ve shipped the statue to him before they even bothered to hand out the ballots.

Even more than a decade later, I’m still pissed about Jason Kendall getting robbed of his ROY by goddamn Todd Hollandsworth.

by Vlad on Oct 27, 2009 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I forgot about that

by Ketcham Bruce on Oct 27, 2009 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You and me both!

Todd fucking Hollandsworth?

Come on, now!

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 27, 2009 8:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

because I cbf googling...

who’s Todd Hollandsworth?

(or is that the point?)

by BlindSquirrel on Oct 27, 2009 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Keith Law for ESPN made a statement that the ROY should be tied to potential (which, along with his performance, was some of the basis of his support for McCutchen). I don’t think thats necessarily a bad idea…thoughts?

by NastyNate82 on Oct 27, 2009 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think I’d agree with that for the most part. I don’t always think predicting potential is an easy thing.

There was a post about ROY on WHYGAVS a while back and Pat touched upon this issue and I believe he ended up deciding to cast his votes with potential very much in mind.

I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.

by Chester J Lampwick on Oct 28, 2009 12:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’d agree with it for the most part too…the only problem is that if some rookie is 26 or 27 has a monster year, I think he should be recognized for it if he outshines other candidates with more potential.

by NastyNate82 on Oct 28, 2009 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it's fair to use potential as a tiebreaker...

…but ultimately I think it’s supposed to be an award for the rookie who plays the best, not the one with the highest ceiling.

by Vlad on Oct 28, 2009 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good fourth OF, stretched as a regular.

Put up a 113 OPS+ as a LF for the Dodgers his rookie year, and beat out two significantly more deserving candidates in Kendall and Edgar Renteria, largely because of Dodger people like Tommy Lasorda lobbying shamelessly for him in the press.

by Vlad on Oct 28, 2009 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wasn’t that during the stretch when LA got like 5 out of 6 ROYs, or something ridiculous?

Where have you gone, Eric Karros?

by JRoth95 on Oct 28, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The second such stretch, yes.

They had four in a row from ‘79-’82 (Rick Sutcliffe, Steve Howe, Fernando, and Steve Sax – who was pretty much a push with Johnny Ray and Ryne Sandberg on actual merit), and then five straight from ‘92-’96 (Karros, Piazza, Raul Mondesi, Hideo Nomo, and Hollandsworth).

The Howe pick wasn’t the greatest, either. Weak field, but at a minimum Dave Smith was better. About 20% more innings, better rate stats, lower WHIP and ERA.

I’m glad I didn’t have to pick between Fernando and Tim Raines in ’81.

by Vlad on Oct 28, 2009 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up. I was just in a bookstore and saw the one with Alvarez on the cover displayed.

by Charlie on Oct 28, 2009 12:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Correction

Pedro Alvarez was on the 2nd to last Baseball America Cover. The entire issue was filled with talk about Jason Heyward, and I know that Heyward was on a cover recently as well, that I just mixed up the issues.

In descending order it goes McCutcheon, Alvarez, Posey, Heyward.

My mistake and apologies.

by backtocali on Oct 28, 2009 9:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs