Michael Pineda And The Rookie Of The Year

by Jeff Sullivan on Nov 7, 2011 2:13 PM PST in Looking Ahead

I am so thankful that this picture can exist

(1)
The Baseball Writers' Association of America is set to kick off its official award announcements next Monday, beginning with the AL and NL Rookie of the Year awards. Used to be that we'd first find out about the winners on the BBWAA website, but now the first word's going to come from their Twitter account. The BBWAA has a Twitter account, and many of its members still care about pitcher wins. These times we live in, I tell you.

Anyway, the reason I bring this up is because SB Nation baseball bloggers did their own awards voting, and here are the AL RotY results:

Num	Name	1st	2nd	3rd	Total
1	Michael Pineda	9	4	3	60
2	Eric Hosmer	5	4	3	40
3	Jeremy Hellickson	4	5	4	39
4	Dustin Ackley	1	5	3	23
5	Ivan Nova	0	5	5	20
6	Alexi Ogando	2	1	0	13
7	Mark Trumbo	1	0	3	8
8	Desmond Jennings	1	0	2	7
9	Brett Lawrie	1	0	1	6

Congratulations to Michael Pineda for winning an award that does not exist. The AL Rookie of the Year award exists, but it is not awarded by SB Nation, or anybody affiliated with SB Nation. Michael Pineda's award is this blog post, which he can read at his leisure.

(2)
Alexi Ogando was not a rookie.

(3)
I bet when the Baseball Writers' Association of America first expanded from one to two people, the name change was really easy.

(4)
It's interesting to mentally compare these results to the official results we expect the BBWAA to deliver. Here, among a limited selection of baseball bloggers, Pineda is the easy winner. With the BBWAA, it's looking like it's going to be Hellickson or Nova, with Pineda and the position players a step behind. The BBWAA isn't dropping daily clues or anything, but just based on the history, I feel comfortable in my assumption. And I think it's going to be Hellickson or Nova because Hellickson had a 2.95 ERA, and Nova had a 16-4 record.

Pineda, of course, was a much better pitcher than Hellickson, and he was a much better pitcher than Nova. Assuming this ends up the way I think it'll end up, this'll be one of those times that it's really apparent how differently internet writers and print writers think. And if this doesn't end up the way I think it'll end up, then congratulations, Brian Dinkelman. I definitely didn't see that one coming.

(5)
As I understand it, the Rookie of the Year award is supposed to go to the league's best rookie. Consensus seems to be that "best" is some combination of performance and playing time. This is why Brett Lawrie doesn't show up at the top of many lists. But why should playing time be that important? Brett Lawrie came to the plate 171 times and hit .293/.373/.580. That is an outstanding performance. An outstanding performance over a limited sample, sure, but a more outstanding performance than any other AL rookie, as far as I can tell. Why shouldn't he get more consideration for the award? It isn't the AL's most valuable rookie. It's the AL's best rookie. There's room for interpretation. Man, there's room for interpretation with everything.

(6)
I'm having trouble finding the appropriate level of disappointment to feel and express if and when Pineda doesn't win the official award. I'm sure he will have been more deserving than whoever ends up winning, assuming it isn't Pineda, and that's a bummer. But it's an award, so who cares? But Pineda is a Mariner, and I root for the Mariners to win games, so why shouldn't I also root for the Mariners to win awards? But it's an award, so who cares? This award will have absolutely no bearing on the rest of Pineda's career. I guess you could argue that he's so psychologically fragile that not winning would crush him, but then you could argue the opposite and say that not winning would make him more driven. There are two baseless arguments that could be made by stupid people.

If, say, Hellickson or Nova win the award, I think I'll think "aw nuts." I feel like I should care more than that, but I also feel like I should not. In the unimportant world of professional baseball, there are more important things than this.

Tweet Comment 18 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Here are my awards which also mean nothing.

1. Pineda
2. Lawrie
3. Ackley
…
137. Trumbo

M's fan newly relocated to SF My homepage

by lailaihei on Nov 7, 2011 2:26 PM PST reply actions 2 recs

Seeing the joy from King Felix after he won the Cy Young last year, makes me believe these guys care quite a bit about these awards.

It would be awesome to see Pineda experience a slightly smaller form of that joy. Damn the BBWAA

Supporting from Hawai'i

by 808duck on Nov 7, 2011 2:29 PM PST reply actions

Shouldn't Brett Lawrie overcoming the handiap of being compared to Danielle count for something?

by msb on Nov 7, 2011 3:14 PM PST reply actions

One potential way this could affect Pineda's career...

is in arbitration. Keith Law mentioned on a podcast that player reps like to use these awards as arguments for more money in the arbitration process. If this is remotely accurate, him not winning could be a good thing for the Mariners, since he might not make as much is the arb process. SO HA! it could possibly (probably not) mean SOMETHING.

by JaaronGriffeyJr on Nov 7, 2011 3:42 PM PST reply actions

The hanging apostrophe is so annoying that it makes me care less for their damn award

by lemonverbena on Nov 7, 2011 3:50 PM PST reply actions

Correct punctuation is annoying?

I hate you.

I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.

by Llewdor on Nov 8, 2011 10:22 AM PST up reply actions

Technically correct, grammatically unnecessary, aesthetically undesirable

by lemonverbena on Nov 8, 2011 11:40 AM PST up reply actions

Grammatically very necessary.

It indicates a possessive, whereas without it you have a plural noun followed by another noun instead of a modifier for the noun in question – putting the “writers” in the possessive tells us whose association it is. It is their Association. If it were the ABBWA or the AABBW, then it could do without the apostrophe.

Don't worry; I'm a writer.

by harkening on Nov 9, 2011 12:24 AM PST up reply actions

I understand what the apostrophe does

But indicating the possessive isn’t a a hard-and-fast requirement, unless you consider the National Football League Players Association, MLBPA and the like as having been grammatically incorrect this whole time. They don’t need to “possess” it to be an Association. Who is associating? The Players.

by lemonverbena on Nov 9, 2011 7:15 AM PST up reply actions

Yeah, the MLBPA and NFLPA annoy me for the very reason you note.

An association is a noun, and “players” is also a noun – it is not modifying “association” in any way, grammatically speaking. There can be an association of players. But there cannot be a players association. There can be players associating, though. See, associating is a gerund and can serve as a verb – that is what the players are doing with their association.

Their association. Their. Ohmygod. A possessive.*

*This wasn’t meant to be snark, but before I hit post I realized it might come across that way. It’s just that when you expand your thought to its logical grammatical end, you end up with a third person possessive. I suppose it comes down to the fact that “a” players is improper – article number agreement being rather important – and an association is generic. Players has to be modifying, and since players isn’t a noun, it should be made into a possessive to serve as an adjective.

Don't worry; I'm a writer.

by harkening on Nov 10, 2011 1:35 AM PST up reply actions