"Red flags should be raised when the Sporting News -- in a players poll -- voted Beckham the AL Rookie of the Year last month. Around that same time, Beckham's peers in the players association selected him as the top AL rookie."

The winner was Andrew Bailey of the Oakland Athletics, and Deluca has no issue with that. What he takes issue with is Gordon Beckham's fifth place finish,

"...they flubbed by giving Beckham zero first-place votes and two second-place votes."

2009 AL roy voting

Keith Law of ESPN writes today regarding Deluca's comments,

"Rookies of the Year were named Monday, and we get some hometown whining from Chicago (about Gordon Beckham) and Philly (about J.A. Happ). The Chicago writer, Chris Deluca, argues that the players should vote on the award instead of writers who don't take it seriously (a conclusion he draws from the fact that they didn't choose his local guy), even though a look at any year's All-Star reserve selections would tell you that players aren't going to do any better of a job at this than the writers would."

I'm not sure if I agree with Law's assessment that Deluca was "whining" because they didn't pick Gordon. He readily admits that the correct pick was made. His issue comes with the zero first place votes that Beckham received.

"Bailey also opened the season on the A's roster, but he worked his way into the closer's role. The right-hander started out in the stress-free world of middle relief. He clearly had the most impressive rookie season, actually getting stronger after being the A's lone representative at the All-Star Game."

I have never been a fan of the writers handling the voting for anything. That being said, I'm not sure that giving the players the votes cures anything. There are no statistical guidelines for this kind of vote, and whenever you add the human element to anything you will have flaws.

Bailey was obviously the deserving winner of this honor, and I'm not sure anybody ever remembers the runner up for ROY. You either win the award or you don't.

Take a look at the stats above. Do you see anything wrong with the way the vote went?

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

...
written by Bill@TDS , November 18, 2009

The flaw is not that Andrus finished ahead of Beckham, but that Andrus didn't win. De Luca's article is insane, especially where he asserts that it "wasn't about defense" based on the fact that both Andrus and Beckham made a lot of errors. The fact is, Beckham was a bad 3B and Andrus was the best defensive SS in the league. I would've voted Andrus #1 and Beckham at about #6.

Also, and I'm coming across a very similar thing with the Cy Young voting -- what's the logic in saying that the right guy won, but another guy deserved more first-place votes? Aren't you basically saying "A deserved to win, but B deserved to have more voters mistakenly think that HE deserved to win"? That makes no sense to me at all.

...
written by wik13 , November 18, 2009

I thought that Bailey should win too, but Gordo should have been second. He was certainly more impactful as a position player than Elvis Andrus. Are you kidding me? Look at the OBP, AVG & Slugging.

I suppose they throw defense into the mix, but some leway should be given to a player that is forced to switch positions so they can get his bat in the lineup.

...
written by wik13 , November 18, 2009

Oh, and the writers ARE retarded. Just look at the HOF voting.

...
written by Bill@TDS , November 18, 2009

"I suppose they throw defense in the mix" just doesn't cover it. A run saved is just as important as a run scored, and shortstop is a more important position than third base. Andrus' excellent defense at the more important position, and the fact that he played all year while Beckham missed a third of it, put Andrus easily ahead. And Beckham falls behind a bunch of other guys, too. I think he's going to be great and might end up being the best player of all the rookies this year, but there's just no way he was deserving of ROY consideration.

Why would learning a new position be a point in his favor? Seems to me that if Andrus already knew how to play shortstop and saved a whole bunch of runs Beckham didn't, it doesn't really matter, for the purpose of determining who the best rookie was, WHY Beckham didn't.

...
written by Rex Jaybels , November 18, 2009

I have no horse in this race, but as I see it Andrus must have received more votes based on his defense, or the fact that he had more time on the field, or more likely both.

From what I can see, Beckham has much better offensive numbers in far less ABs. Andrus had better speed numbers (triples and SBs) but Beckham out hit him, out slugged him and knocked in 23 more runs.

Two things came in to play here for the only two to receive votes who were not pitchers: time on the field and defense.

Write comment

Name

Email

Website

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Add Comment