NL Rookie of the Year: Chris Coghlan
McCutchen got a total of 7 votes, 2 first place, 5 second place. Garrett Jones got 2 third place votes. (This is out of a total of 32 ballots.)
UPDATE by Charlie: What a silly pick. Not only is it hard to defend on its merits (Coghlan's defense in left was pretty bad, which makes his offensive performance less interesting), and not only is Coghlan not a very exciting player, but this pick has a great chance of ending up in history's dustbin once the baseball gods realize that Coghlan isn't really a .320 hitter and start making his balls in play disappear into fielders' gloves. It's a real drag that the voters picked him when they could have chosen a player like Tommy Hanson or McCutchen who not only happened to be better than Coghlan but also has a shot at an excellent career. Not that we've come to expect much from the voters.
2 months ago
ElDuce
71 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Batting average!
It stuns me that Hanson and McCutchen got a total of only four first place votes between them.
by Charlie on Nov 16, 2009 4:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I’m with you there. I thought If cutch didn’t win he’d at least have a decent amount of 1st place votes. 2 was not what I had in mind
"Everybody panic! If you have a small child, use it as a shield! They love tender meat."
by BattlinBucs on Nov 16, 2009 4:57 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
The whole thing’s kind of funny when you look at it. I guess people might point to the number of starts as what distinguishes between Happ and Hanson, but then you look at Randy Wells and he had almost the exact same season as Happ, just took more losses and only got 1 vote from the 32 voters while Happ appeared on all 32 ballots. I guess the quality of your team matters somewhat, but the difference between appearing on 1 ballot and 32?
by ElDuce on Nov 16, 2009 4:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hanson didn't deserve any firsts, IMO...
…but he would’ve been a less-bad choice than Coghlan.
This pick is just nonsensical.
by Vlad on Nov 16, 2009 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
why not?
better WHIP, better K:BB, better K/9, better HR/9
he does have 40 fewer innings, and in a rookie year, I understand you might want to see if he can last, but it seems to strong to say he didn’t deserve any… i.e. to say, if someone picked him over Happ, its understandable.
by BurgherKing on Nov 16, 2009 6:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Everybody should vote for the best candidate
And since that isn’t him, he doesn’t deserve any first place votes.
Happ doesn’t deserve any first place votes, either, for the same reason.
by Vlad on Nov 16, 2009 7:11 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
so you think it shoulda been cutch all the way?
as you’ve said, coghlan was a worse pick… although, I don’t see why Hanson or Happ are necessarily easily removable from ROY discussion…
something strange in the voting overall this year… i didn’t follow the AL closely enough to comment too strongly, but it seems the AL also had stronger candidates than Bailey…
by BurgherKing on Nov 16, 2009 10:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In defense of Bailey, he led all pitchers with that many IP in ERA, and was third among all relievers in WAR. Performance relative to others at your position probably counts for something.
by ElDuce on Nov 16, 2009 10:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but Gordon Beckham should have ran away with that award.
http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates
by Nate Rose on Nov 16, 2009 11:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You think so?
I would’ve gone with Andrus based on his defense, although Beckham wouldn’t have been a bad pick.
by biggyv on Nov 17, 2009 4:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Andrus is a good pick too, but I think Beckham gets it. I knew he wouldn’t get it, though, because his defense is suspect and he went 0-for-forever when he first came up.
http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates
by Nate Rose on Nov 17, 2009 9:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
At least Coghlan has slight advantages in offense and plate appearances. Completely ignoring defense, he was better than Cutch. McGhee on more total ballots is worse. But, whatever. It’s hard to get worked up over it when we knew it was coming.
by Adam Reynolds on Nov 16, 2009 6:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Even though I think Cutch should have won, there certainly were a lot of solid rookie performances this year. I almost think Bailey winning in the AL is worse. All in all, I’ll take solace in the fact that the Bucs have Cutch and the Marlins and Phils have Coughlan and Happ moving forward.
by NastyNate82 on Nov 16, 2009 7:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you have the wrong argument
Coghlan’s still a little better in most of the meaningful batting stats than McCutchen. His OBP is still .025 points higher than Cutch’s, and his wOBA is .004 points higher as well. So it’s not like Coghlan is a giant empty batting average. The one reason I think McCutchen has the only legitimate case out of the other rookies against him is the defense, because of Coghlan’s mediocre showing in a position that’s not very valuable to begin with, that being LF.
Honestly though, when Coghlan moves back to his natural position at 2B I think both players have pretty much equal value. Watching both these players for the next ten years is gonna be fun.
by tdp992 on Nov 16, 2009 7:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Coghlan drew a fair number of walks, but the main reason is OBP was so high was that he batted .321, which almost certainly isn’t sustainable.
You’re right, though, his defense is a big strike against him.
by Charlie on Nov 16, 2009 7:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't matter...
if it is unsustainable going forward. His OBP for 2009 was what it was. You don’t vote fot the ROY based on potential. That being the case this isn’t the biggest upset in the world. The problem I have is that these awards still completely ignore defense as a meaningful part of the game. As tdp992 insnuated if defense were a consideration Cutch would have won hands down. That being said, Coglan’s batting average should not be held against him. That’s kind of a silly argument when considering a player for a year end award. No matter how you slice hit he still hit .321 for the year. That’s a nice accomplishment luck being a factor or not.
by Slick1 on Nov 16, 2009 9:51 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I do think people are downgrading him on his offense a little.
The batting average was high, but he’s also done it his whole minor league career. The lowest average he recorded for a full year was .287 in 2007. He probably got a little lucky, but he’s also got a very nice line drive stroke that really helps that batting average. It’s certainly not all luck.
Another thing, he draws a LOT of walks. In the minors, he had more BB than K 3 times. The only time he didn’t have more BB than K, he had a 1:1 ratio. Extremely nice plate discipline that also continued in the Majors with a rookie K:BB ratio of 0.69.
Knock him for his defense all you want (by the way, how many of us trashed Jack Wilson as horrible before the invention of UZR? Guess we didn’t take defense into account either, huh?), but his offense is for real. And like someone else already pointed out, he’s a natural second baseman. Using the limited metrics available for minor league players, he was a pretty good one too. He played a whopping one game in the outfield in the minors. You have to think the Marlins are going to put him back at second when they move Uggla.
All that said, I still think McCutchen or Hanson deserved the award over him by a good margin.
Also, I agree with Slick1: Whether or not his average is sustainable should not be a factor for a year-end award. Rookie of the year isn’t a “who’s likely to have the best career” award. That’s what the prospects lists are for.
http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates
by Nate Rose on Nov 16, 2009 11:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The defense, and the knock thereof...
…is what puts McCutchen ahead of him. There’s a huge difference between an average CF and a below-average LF who’s learning the position on the fly.
If he’s a better defender at 2B, that’s fine, but it doesn’t impact the on-field value that he provided last year in any way.
by Vlad on Nov 17, 2009 9:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, that and the baserunning
McCutchen has 14 extra steals, and the same number of caught stealings.
by Vlad on Nov 17, 2009 9:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not the point.
The point I was trying to make is that people are acting as though his batting average was a giant fluke. Coghlan has legitimately awesome skills at hitting for average.
My defense of his defense wasn’t trying to justify him winning RoY…as I said, I think McCutchen should have won it. It was more directed towards the people on this thread who seem to think that Coghlan is going to be the next Bobby Crosby-style RoY winner.
http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates
by Nate Rose on Nov 17, 2009 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Always Impressed
By the stupidity of the people voting for these rewards.
by Slizeezyc on Nov 16, 2009 5:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I predict...
…there will be 25 writers who, in a year or two, will ask themselves, “How did I leave this guy off my ROY ballot in ’09?”
by Brakeman8 on Nov 16, 2009 5:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Not to wish ill upon him, but I think Coghlan has a good chance of going down as the next Pat Listach. Batting average!
by Charlie on Nov 16, 2009 6:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Anybody can fail, but Coghlan/Listach is a poor comparison. Coghlan’s got far more power than Listach ever had and his plate discipline is also better. Coghlan was a supplemental first-round pick, so it’s not like he came out of nowhere with some fluky BA-driven season.
He wasn’t my pick to win the award, but he’s a defensible selection. And I’ll be surprised if doesn’t have a productive career.
by bolton on Nov 17, 2009 1:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree with Bolton
I’m sure you didn’t think deeply about it, but Listach is a bad comp. Interesting when I punched him up at bbref though,
Listach 1992 BA = .290, BABIP .366
Coghlan 2009 BA = .320, BABIP .365
I’ll get nowhere with this argument around here, but I think this shows that Coghlan was much less lucky than Listach. His power is much better too. I think Coghlan might turn out like Bobby Abreu with a little less power.
I wouldn’t have voted for Coghlan, but it’s not so egregious, Mr. Khalil-Greene-is-just-as-good-as-Jason Bay.
by azibuck on Nov 17, 2009 12:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hadn't bothered to look until now...
…but a .365 BABIP is pretty darn high. Coghlan’s not Listach, but I bet he regresses a bit next year anyway.
by Vlad on Nov 17, 2009 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, Coghlan is a better player than Listach, and probably also somewhat less lucky. But Coghlan’s BABIP is still quite high, and you’d expect Listach’s BABIP to be higher relative to his BA, since Listach was really fast and Coghlan isn’t.
by Charlie on Nov 17, 2009 12:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, you missed the grit
“You never know until you live with a guy what kind of guy he is,” Marlins manager Fredi Gonzalez said in September. "I tell you what, he’s off the charts. You see him day in, day out — you see the character, you see the work habits, you see the grit.
by azibuck on Nov 17, 2009 12:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I've seen that one.
Not bad, but I’m more of an Eastwood man, myself.
by Vlad on Nov 17, 2009 12:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, there you go
John Wayne won Best Actor, Eastwood was only nominated.
by azibuck on Nov 17, 2009 4:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Andrew Bailey over his teammate Brett Anderson was worse than the Coghlan award.
by Adam Reynolds on Nov 16, 2009 7:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Garrett Jones deserved more votes, too.
by chodan11 on Nov 16, 2009 7:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Based on WAR these were the most valuable rookies in the NL:
1. Andrew McCutchen 3.4
2. Randy Wells 3.0
3. Tommy Hanson 2.6
3. Garrett Jones 2.6
5. Colby Rasmus 2.3
5. Chris Coghlan 2.3
7. Casey McGehee 2.2
8. J.A. Happ 1.8
So in terms of WAR 4th place McCutchen was first by nearly half a win, 6th place Wells was second by a similar margin, 7th place Jones tied for third, 1 vote Rasmus tied with first place Coghlan, and second place Happ was behind 7 players.
by ElDuce on Nov 16, 2009 9:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, Bailey winning in the AL was worse than Coghlan.
I understand McCutchen not getting it, but Happ or Hanson would have been a better choice in the NHL. I thought Andrus should have won the AL.
by Suffering Buc on Nov 16, 2009 10:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Chris who?
Bah. Why we pay attention to this stuff I don’t know. It’s like the college football polls, absolutely meaning less and worthless 10 seconds after it comes out.
by bucdaddy on Nov 17, 2009 9:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I've gotta defend this
Coghlan deserved it over McCutchen and Hanson. First of all, Coghlan and Hanley Ramirez single handedly kept the Marlins in the race down the strecth. Second of all, he played for a pretty good team and was one of the stars of that team. McCutchen played for the Bucs and Hanson played for the mediocre Braves. Third, Coghlan hit .320 as a rookie. McCutchen didn’t even touch .300 at all this year. Also, I believe that J.A. Happ got a major snub in this category. He pitched so well this year that he made a veteran (Jamie Moyer) have to pitch long relief. While I am the biggest Bucs fan alive, I gotta defend this pick. McCutchen did have a great season but I think Coghlan was the true ROY.
by chrisiu10 on Nov 17, 2009 9:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
-Coghlan was like the 6th best player on the Marlins. Cutch was the best player on his team. I don’t know if that should even have anything to do with it, though.
-Portraying CC as a “star” is extremely generous usage of the term.
-If the Marlins were a “pretty good” team, then the Braves with all of one less win are good as well. This also probably shouldn’t have to do with the award.
-Batting average isn’t as telling as other indicators of how well the players did.
-Moyer is 100 years old with declining ability, so I don’t buy pushing him aside as a big accomplishment.
by Adam Reynolds on Nov 17, 2009 10:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The ROY is supposed to honor the rookie who plays the best.
Why should Chris Coghlan get extra credit on the ballot because he happened to come up on a team with guys like Hanley and Josh Johnson? If you want to honor those guys for what they did, there are already awards for that – you don’t need to push their credit onto Coghlan’s plate.
by Vlad on Nov 17, 2009 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
to pick up where Vlad left off...
the fact that CC was surrounded by so much talent actually is an argument made in McCutchen’s favor if you asked me. Cutch was able to put up his numbers with a less talented supporting cast. And as Reynolds said, nobody really uses batting average any more when evaluating players (outside of the sports writes who voted for these things). CC’s batting average is only significant in the context of what it added to his OBP and OPS overall. He did out OPS Cutch .850 to .836. Problem is that defene should be considered when voting for these damn awards. CC’s UZR/150 was -14.5 and that’s horrible (I don’t care if he played out of position or not because for 2009 he’s being judges as a LF) while Cutch’s UZR/150 was -1.0. What these means is that Cutch had a 3.4 WAR season while Coghlan had a 2.3 WAR season. Cutch contributed to more wins and should have been ROY. AS someone above stated he had a better WAR than any of the ROY candidates.
by Slick1 on Nov 17, 2009 12:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Second of all, he played for a pretty good team and was one of the stars of that team. McCutchen played for the Bucs and Hanson played for the mediocre Braves.
You draw an interesting line between “pretty good” and “mediocre”. Apparently they’re separated by 1 game, as the Marlins won 87 games to the Braves 86. The Braves had briefly passed the Marlins in the last few weeks of the season.
by ElDuce on Nov 17, 2009 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The award is Rookie of the Year, not Most Valuable Rookie.
If you want to make an argument that Coghlan was the most valuable rookie to his team, I’ll disagree, but at least I could see where you’re coming from. However, that’s not what the award is for. The award is for the best rookie, regardless of team.
http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates
by Nate Rose on Nov 17, 2009 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Even if it were Most Valuable Rookie...
…you still need to use a jackass, counter-intuitive definition of “value” in order to give it to Coghlan.
by Vlad on Nov 17, 2009 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
True.
http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates
by Nate Rose on Nov 17, 2009 9:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not to be picky but.
Coghlan and Hanley Ramirez single handedly
How can single handedly refer to more than 1 entity? (and they’ve got 2 hands each…)
that is all
by BlindSquirrel on Nov 17, 2009 7:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Coghlan has a very high line drive rate.
So his BABIP is not as overly high as it might seem. I don’t think think he’ll hit .320 every year, but I think he could hit over .300. His strike zone control is superb – he had around .400 OBP in the high minors as well.
He’s really a lot like Tabata, with the exception of less speed and a bit more power due to his age.
by MarkInDallas on Nov 17, 2009 12:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Coghlan’s expected average, based on batted ball types, was .290. His actual average was 31 points higher: .321. This represents 16 hits in Coghlan’s number of at-bats. Since he’s apparently not fast (and therefore not beating out groundballs) (I honestly wouldn’t know if he is or is not), it appears likely that luck/statistical variance/whatever term you use explains it.
McCutchen’s expected average was .271, and he actually posted a .286. This is a difference of 7 hits in McCutchen’s at-bats. McCutchen is fast and probably beat out a few groundballs, maybe even close to 7.
McCutchen’s outputs are pretty much in line with what you’d expect from his inputs, so to speak. Coghlan’s still got some splainin to do.
by matskralc on Nov 17, 2009 7:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Using the xBABIP calculator, you should expect a BABIP of around .333 from Coghlan. He was lucky, but like I said, it’s not all luck.
http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates
by Nate Rose on Nov 17, 2009 9:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Against an actual BABIP of .365. About the same difference I pointed out in his actual AVG. So I’m not sure precisely what you’re disagreeing with.
by matskralc on Nov 18, 2009 5:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
McCutchen
I’m not a Pirates fan, my team doesn’t reside in the NL, but I thought that Andrew was far an away the best rookie in the NL. Sure he didn’t play a full season but what he did when he got to the big show was tremendous. He came out with a swagger of a seasoned vet and looked very much like a future star. 3 HRs in a game? That alone should get you all the votes you need for ROY. Awards are political anyway, he doesn’t need a trophy to know he was the best.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
by Rogue Nine on Nov 17, 2009 1:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Question about Cutch
What’s the deal with his UZR? He had a good defensive rep coming up, and people are generally impressed when they watch him, yet his UZR is negative (and projected to stay there next year as well). I’m not saying he should be a +15 guy or whatever, but I’m surprised to see him actually in the red. Is there a flaw in his game, is it related to the Pirates’ wacky OF positioning, or is it the God of Small Sample Sizes?
I bring it up because, although the voters were obviously not looking at advanced stats, it doesn’t exactly help his candidacy to see a minus in front of his UZR.
by JRoth95 on Nov 17, 2009 2:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
1 part sample size
1 part being inexperienced.
His UZR is only -0.7, though, meaning he cost the Pirates less than a full run defensively. Over the course of a full season, he’d have cost the team 1 run in the outfield and given back much more with the bat.
I wouldn’t worry about it too much…a lot of it was adjustment. Interestingly enough, while researching this I found out Nate McLouth actually posted a pretty good UZR this season.
http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates
by Nate Rose on Nov 17, 2009 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Those UZR projections are closer to "interesting trivia"...
…than “usueful tool”. Particularly in the case of someone like McCutchen, who has maybe a quarter the sample you need in order to draw conclusions about his past performance, never mind the future.
by Vlad on Nov 17, 2009 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I suspected as much
I almost wonder why they bother with UZR for new players. I noted they had Moss regressing pretty hard: +2.5 iirc? Anyway.
Hope to see Cutch start putting up +10 in the field – would make him a real monster, and I see no reason he couldn’t do it (OK, I could see a reason – flanked by Milledge and GFJones, he could just end up unable to position himself optimally, and instead be positioned for triage at the corners. But I don’t think LM will be that bad).
by JRoth95 on Nov 17, 2009 4:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it's really a "they", there
Just some guy with a blog, who thought it’d be a fun exercise.
by Vlad on Nov 17, 2009 5:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So...shall we assume...
that Nyjer Morgan has about half the sample size needed to draw conclusions about his past performance??
Cutch…108 games in the OF
Morgan…206 games in the OF.
by Thunder on Nov 17, 2009 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actual inning count is even closer: ~950 to ~1525. But I think Vlad was rounding up required sample size (and underestimating Cutch’s sample) – I don’t think that you actually need 4000 innings (2.75 full seasons, or 3 150-game seasons) to get a handle on UZR. But who knows?
by JRoth95 on Nov 17, 2009 6:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The most common saying about defensive metrics is that 1 full season = 2 months of hitting stats.
http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates
by Nate Rose on Nov 17, 2009 9:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I was just guesstimating Cutch's total innings
1,000 innings at a position is enough to start drawing very general conclusions, and 2,000 is what you’d like to have before making any firm statements. And more is better, of course.
Nyjer’s situation is somewhat problematic, in that his career PT is split pretty much evenly between LF and CF. You can translate info from the one to suggest ability at the other, of course, but that’s not as good as actual information. It’s clear that he’s an above-average OF defender, but it’s not clear exactly how above-average he is.
by Vlad on Nov 18, 2009 8:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That...
and I do think our positiioning of the CF tends to hurt the player the same way I believe the positioning of the LF helps that player. The CF plays so shallow that it prevents them from reaching balls in the gap that other CF would get to. I believe the positioning is based on a Dan Fox analysis that we can save more runs by getting to more singles that are catchable than the few extra base hits that the OF may not have gotten to anyway. I cannot say definitively that the positioning helps or hinders the UZR without knowing exactly how all of the zones are broken down. I do think it is possible though that positioning plays a part.
by Slick1 on Nov 17, 2009 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
makes sense
If repositioning LF and CF could help them both post big UZRs, then everyone (with fast OFs anyway) would do it.
by JRoth95 on Nov 17, 2009 4:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Only...
if it could be proven that big UZR’s help win ballgames. Top 20 players UZR/150 in 2009…only 5 came from playoff teams. (Players played at least 2/3 of teams games)
The five…
Chone Figgins 3B Angels
Juan Rivera OF Angels
JD Drew OF Red Sox
Colby Rasmus OF Cardinals
Chase Utley 2B Phillies
Even if you went down 10 more spots…you’d only add Ibanez, Furcal and Casey Blake.
by Thunder on Nov 17, 2009 9:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn’t necessarily mean anything. There are 8 other guys on the field.
http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates
by Nate Rose on Nov 17, 2009 9:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention
It seems that UZR is a rather clumped-together stat: of 134 qualifying players this year, the full range is from -25.9 to 27.1 – but 125 players are between -20 and +20, and 113 are between -15 and +15.
Point being that the 10 best and worst are real outliers, while there’s not much difference between the 11th-best (Cesar Iszturis (!) at +14.1) and the 30th-best (Brandon Inge, +10.1). Given season-to-season variation, regression, position, and all the other factors, there’s basically no reliable difference between the 93rd percentile fielder and the 77th percentile fielder.
I’m not saying that defense doesn’t matter or that better players don’t help much: I’m saying that, aside from some absolute wizards, it’s more useful to identify reliable, plus gloves with other good characteristics than to worry about going from good to very good or very good to excellent – the odds are that you’re only gaining a handful of runs, and possibly not even that.
by JRoth95 on Nov 18, 2009 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm hoping that for next year MLB has the multiple camera option on MLB.tv
That was great in the playoffs to see the positioning of the fielders. You never get that with watching the edited broadcast.
by MarkInDallas on Nov 19, 2009 2:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd say his UZR accurately gives his story for this year.
That is to say his superior speed made up for some less than wonderful decisions. I expect we’ll see some improvement next year. He certainly has the tools and he’s got the desire.
by MarkInDallas on Nov 19, 2009 2:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It can only help if he believes that his defense cost him ROY.
by JRoth95 on Nov 19, 2009 11:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
