1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

American League Rookie of the Year

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L), Nov 12, 2006.


The award will be announced Monday - who do you think deserves it?

  1. Jonathan Papelbon Red Sox

    8 vote(s)
  2. Justin Verlander Tigers

    26 vote(s)
  3. Kenji Johjima Mariners

    1 vote(s)
  4. Francisco Liriano Twins

    11 vote(s)
  5. Jared Weaver Angels

    1 vote(s)
  6. Nick Markakis Orioles

    1 vote(s)
  7. Melky Cabrera Yankees

    1 vote(s)
  1. loveyabye

    loveyabye Guest

    Verlander will win. Papelbon should be second.
  2. Brandon Webb placed 4th in 2003 and he has a good shot to win the NL Cy Young this year.

    Just saying
  3. BYH

    BYH Active Member

    So one of the greatest reliever seasons of all-time, in a market that chews up and spits out closers (hello Keith Foulke), means nothing to you?
  4. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    We'll see in five years.
  5. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    Bogus stat.

    I want innings with my 2.00-give-or-take ERA.
  6. BYH

    BYH Active Member

    I don't disagree that saves are, by and large, a bogus stat.

    But a brilliant closer IS valuable, particularly if he can go more than three outs.

    And if your standard for awards and such is a 2-and-change ERA, good luck finding those guys these days. And no, I do not consider Liriano, as good as he was this year, one of those guys because he didn't pitch enough innings.
  7. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    I think that, unless there is an unprecedented dearth of everyday/starting-pitching candidates, closers should be out of the discussion.

    It's a little worse than a DH winning MVP.

    To me.

    I could be wrong.
  8. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    I've made this argument before:

    With the way pitching staffs are handled nowadays, because starters are *never* expected to go 9 innings anymore, closers are now just as valuable as starters.

    Maybe it shouldn't be that way -- but it is. Blame La Russa if you want, for his use of Eckersley or Honeycutt in the late 1980s; blame Casey Stengel for using Joe Page and Ryne Duren the way he did in the early 1950s. Hell, blame Firpo Marberry.

    But relievers, as a group, are not "failed starters" (yes, you can find plenty of examples of this. But you can find examples of anything.)

    That mentality is based in 1968. It is not applicable today.

    Consider: Who can tell me the NL and AL leaders in complete games this season ... without looking it up? Aaron Harang. C.C. Sabathia. Both had 6 CGs. Only four NL pitchers had more than 3. Only two AL pitchers had more than 3.

    A given starter is NOT more valuable than a given closer, just based on his role on the staff. That time is over.
  9. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    What about Luis Firpo?
  10. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    Agreed. Ask the Yankees just how valuable a lights-out closer can be.
  11. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Ask Jack Dempsey. ;)
  12. BYH

    BYH Active Member

    Another example of the lack of length provided these days by starting pitchers: This was the first non-strike year, I believe, in which no one won 20 games.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page