NL ROY

[Columbo]

While I really like Uggla, there are too many Marlins in the field to really give any of them a chance.

Zimmerman, who should be in most people's top three, should take the award just on that alone. Not saying he is the top rookie, but that's how I see it playing out.

The question WAS "who is most deserving" of the award.

If Zimmerman gets it, it's a typical travesty by the baseball writers.

How the **** can a guy with lesser numbers AND on a team a million games out of first be more deserving.

I would love to hear some facts that show how he is more deserving than any of the top three Marlins.

And my answer is Uggla. To me, he's most deserving. But when one team has multiple candidates, they will split the vote.

And, to me, ROY should focus more on the individual's talents and season than the team's. Zimmerman has 93 RBI and his OPS is comparable to Uggla's and Willingham's.

For me, my top five are:

Uggla
Zimmerman
Ramirez
Willingham
Fielder

You don't like it, fine. But you don't ask for opinions and then rip people for offering them.

You answered the question as it was posed.

Thanks.

 

[shotglass]

Columbo, you're talking all the offensive numbers and totally ignoring the fact that Ryan Zimmerman is bringing third-base play to a new level, one that not even Rolen has reached. And that is not exaggeration.

 

[DyePack]

My top five:

Cedeno
Cubs SP Rich Hill
Cubs SP Angel Guzman
Cubs SP Sean Marshall
Cubs SP Juan Mateo

 

[Bullrog]

Top three:

J.Johnson
R.Zimmerman
A.Ethier

 

[Columbo]

Columbo, you're talking all the offensive numbers and totally ignoring the fact that Ryan Zimmerman is bringing third-base play to a new level, one that not even Rolen has reached. And that is not exaggeration.

That is an exaggeration.

I've seen the guy play a dozen times this year, and, frankly, Caminiti and Rolen were/are better.

What are you utterly ignoring:
Tougher park
Tougher defensive position
Tougher offensive position
In the middle of a playoff race
You utterly ignored it because you popped a chubby watching him play third.

It's also amazing how stolen bases are totally disregarded on this board.

I swear, the ****ing things should just be added to slugging percentage so as to get through some of the dim bulbs.

 

[Oz]

I voted Zimmerman. And it's not even close.

And logic flies out the ****ing window again.

Incredible what lengths people will go to to not agree with me.

Um, what? I never even read your comment. While at work, I saw the thread title, clicked, voted, then posted. I didn't take the time to know your take or anyone else's -- I posted then quickly got back to work. You think way too much of yourself to actually believe I made that posted just for you.

My argument for Zimmerman is this -- he bats third for a team, which speaks volumes about how much they value his bat. He's batting .286 with 18-93-9. He's also shown a knack for game-winning hits.

While I like Hanley, I just don't see it, especially given the other great rookies on that team.

 

[Columbo]

I voted Zimmerman. And it's not even close.

And logic flies out the ****ing window again.

Incredible what lengths people will go to to not agree with me.

Um, what? I never even read your comment. While at work, I saw the thread title, clicked, voted, then posted. I didn't take the time to know your take or anyone else's -- I posted then quickly got back to work. You think way too much of yourself to actually believe I made that posted just for you.

My argument for Zimmerman is this -- he bats third for a team, which speaks volumes about how much they value his bat. He's batting .286 with 18-93-9. He's also shown a knack for game-winning hits.

While I like Hanley, I just don't see it, especially given the other great rookies on that team.

Wow.

I guess you and I had different math teachers.

Just jaw-dropping.

And total dismissal of Zimmerman playing zero meaningful games in the standings.

I want to keep a list of you people around for the next time you try yapping about how leading a team to or near the playoffs should be a determinant in some other vote.

Christ on a sidecar.

 

[Oz]

Wow.

I guess you and I had different math teachers.

Just jaw-dropping.

And total dismissal of Zimmerman playing zero meaningful games in the standings.

I want to keep a list of you people around for the next time you try yapping about how leading a team to or near the playoffs should be a determinant in some other vote.

No, we didn't have different math teachers. I'm simply looking at a different set of numbers. The fact that Zimmerman should top 100 RBI soon and play a Gold Glove third base doesn't happen every day.

You're taking this way too personally, Hanley.

 

[Trey Beamon]

Outing alert: Columbo is Bill O'Reilly. :D

You laid out your reasons - all valid -- for choosing Ramirez. Several, including myself, did the same -- unless you're reading another thread -- regarding Zimmerman.

We disagree. I don't see why you need to get all pissy. It's not like a bunch of us are touting Paul Maholm as a ROY candidate.

 

[Columbo]

Outing alert: Columbo is Bill O'Reilly. :D

You laid out your reasons - all valid -- for choosing Ramirez. Several, including myself, did the same -- unless you're reading another thread -- regarding Zimmerman.

We disagree. I don't see why you need to get all pissy. It's not like a bunch of us are touting Paul Maholm as a ROY candidate.

If Zimmerman wins, it would be just as offensive and inaccurate as Maholm.

I'm incredulous (you say pissy) because no one has shown the empirical data that supports such a pick.

 

[Oz]

I'm incredulous (you say pissy) because no one has shown the empirical data that supports such a pick.

Again, you're taking this way to personally, Hanley.

 

[Columbo]

I'm incredulous (you say pissy) because no one has shown the empirical data that supports such a pick.

Again, you're taking this way to personally, Hanley.

That's cheap talk. What you come up with when facts don't support you.

 

[Columbo]

So we're clear... I think Zimmerman WILL win, hands-down.

The sort of lazy, expedient result I have come to get way too used to from baseball writers.

 

[shotglass]

I'm incredulous (you say pissy) because no one has shown the empirical data that supports such a pick.

No, not incredulous. PISSY.

You debate like a petulant 11-year-old.

 

[Columbo]

I'm incredulous (you say pissy) because no one has shown the empirical data that supports such a pick.

No, not incredulous. PISSY.

You debate like a petulant 11-year-old.

Not seeing facts from you either.

 

[bigpern23]

I voted Zimmerman. And it's not even close.

And logic flies out the ****ing window again.

Incredible what lengths people will go to to not agree with me.

Um, what? I never even read your comment. While at work, I saw the thread title, clicked, voted, then posted. I didn't take the time to know your take or anyone else's -- I posted then quickly got back to work. You think way too much of yourself to actually believe I made that posted just for you.

My argument for Zimmerman is this -- he bats third for a team, which speaks volumes about how much they value his bat. He's batting .286 with 18-93-9. He's also shown a knack for game-winning hits.

While I like Hanley, I just don't see it, especially given the other great rookies on that team.

Wow.

I guess you and I had different math teachers.

Just jaw-dropping.

And total dismissal of Zimmerman playing zero meaningful games in the standings.

I want to keep a list of you people around for the next time you try yapping about how leading a team to or near the playoffs should be a determinant in some other vote.

Christ on a sidecar.

I gotta disagree with you on the idea that ROY should have anything to do with that rookie's team's place in the standings. Unlike MVP, which is about who is most valuable to their team (it says so in the name), ROY of the year should be based on strictly on who performed best (especially considering the best rookies should be coming up on teams that haven't done well in the standings in recent years).

 

[Columbo]

I voted Zimmerman. And it's not even close.

And logic flies out the ****ing window again.

Incredible what lengths people will go to to not agree with me.

Um, what? I never even read your comment. While at work, I saw the thread title, clicked, voted, then posted. I didn't take the time to know your take or anyone else's -- I posted then quickly got back to work. You think way too much of yourself to actually believe I made that posted just for you.

My argument for Zimmerman is this -- he bats third for a team, which speaks volumes about how much they value his bat. He's batting .286 with 18-93-9. He's also shown a knack for game-winning hits.

While I like Hanley, I just don't see it, especially given the other great rookies on that team.

Wow.

I guess you and I had different math teachers.

Just jaw-dropping.

And total dismissal of Zimmerman playing zero meaningful games in the standings.

I want to keep a list of you people around for the next time you try yapping about how leading a team to or near the playoffs should be a determinant in some other vote.

Christ on a sidecar.

I gotta disagree with you on the idea that ROY should have anything to do with that rookie's team's place in the standings. Unlike MVP, which is about who is most valuable to their team (it says so in the name), ROY of the year should be based on strictly on who performed best (especially considering the best rookies should be coming up on teams that haven't done well in the standings in recent years).

The same numbers in a pennant race are superior to the same numbers 25 games back.

 

[Oz]

I'm incredulous (you say pissy) because no one has shown the empirical data that supports such a pick.

Again, you're taking this way to personally, Hanley.

That's cheap talk. What you come up with when facts don't support you.

Actually, my facts supported my argument. They opposed yours, which is your problem, not mine. Do you have a problem agreeing to disagree with others? If so, you're going to have trouble in life.

Oh, and bigpern is right. It's not Rookie MVP, which would be different and take the playoff chase into account. NL ROY simply goes to someone who outperformed all other rookies that season. It might not be your horse, but more often that not, it's a deserving candidate.

 

[Columbo]

I'm incredulous (you say pissy) because no one has shown the empirical data that supports such a pick.

Again, you're taking this way to personally, Hanley.

That's cheap talk. What you come up with when facts don't support you.

Actually, my facts supported my argument. They opposed yours, which is your problem, not mine. Do you have a problem agreeing to disagree with others? If so, you're going to have trouble in life.

Oh, and bigpern is right. It's not Rookie MVP, which would be different and take the playoff chase into account. NL ROY simply goes to someone who outperformed all other rookies that season. It might not be your horse, but more often that not, it's a deserving candidate.

Don't let the FACT that stats accumulated during a pennant race MUST hold more weight than on a team 25 games out.... don't let that fact get in the way of this:

Ramirez's numbers are superior, in a vacuum, before factoring in playoff races.

And, I'll have to look up Josh Johnson's numbers to see how he ranks among starting rookie pitchers in recent history.

 

[Oz]

Columbo, from this, the Marlins thread and the baseball thread, you seem a huge Marlins fan. So I won't even pretend to think the facts that follow might sway your opinion here.

You can argue "superior" numbers all you want, but defense needs to factor in somewhere. Zimmerman's got a gold glove on the hot corner while Hanley's made 20 errors -- ninth-highest among all MLB players, fifth among shortstops. And guys like Angel Berroa and Clint Barmes -- not exactly known for their defense -- have better fielding percentages at shortstop than Hanley.

Those hardly seem like "superior" numbers to me.