PDA

View Full Version : Alexei for AL ROY?


ondafarm
07-29-2008, 02:22 PM
This is a serious thread.

Does Alexei have a shot at AL ROY? His main competition seems to be Evan Longoria of the Rays.

Here are their batting lines:

Player TEAM POS G AB R H 2B HR RBI BB SO SB OBP SLG AVG
E.Longoria TB 3B 95 345 51 96 26 19 61 41 89 6 .354 .525 .278
A.Ramirez CWS 2B 79 265 35 82 15 8 35 9 35 7 .331 .464 .309



In short, Alexei has a higher average, Longoria has more power and takes more walks, but strikesout a lot more. I see Alexei as having one other BIG issue. The number of plate appearances required to qualify for season records is 502 (that is 162 games x 3.1 PA /game) I don't know if Alexei can make it. He is at 265 and the White Sox have only 58 games left (one of which, the Baltimore home? game, he is already out of.) So in 57 games he needs 4.1 plate appearances per game. Unless Alexei moves to lead-off, I doubt he makes the 502 PA.

If Alexei did lead-off, overtake Longoria in hits, runs scored and OBP in addition to BA and maybe even SB, then I think he'd have a shot.

sox1970
07-29-2008, 02:24 PM
If Longoria doesn't tank, he will win...and rightly so.

kittle42
07-29-2008, 02:26 PM
Nope. Longoria wins.

TDog
07-29-2008, 02:43 PM
This has been discussed before. Longoria is playing for an eventual third-place team, but his team has been a great story. And there is all the hype. Writers in cities where the Sox play have begun noticing Ramirez. He made a great impression on the Detroit media. Each American League city gets two ballots with up to three listed on each ballot, in order of first, second and third preference.

How people vote is anyone's guess. There may be some who don't like the idea that professionals from other countries are coming in as major league rookies and diminishing the meaning of the award. I have heard that suggested. There are players who vote for the rookie who contributes the most to a winning team. There are voters who vote for the rookie with the best numbers. There are voters who vote for the rookie they believe has the brightest future, regardless of the numbers. When you hear writers talking about their votes, they mostly debate over whether it should go to the rookie with the best season or the one they think has the best future. Some insist the best "story" should be given the award. In some cases, such as Mark Fydrich or Richie (Dick was the MVP) Allen, it may be all or most of the above, although Fydrich never approached the production of his rookie season.

This is an award won by both Allen and Ted Sizemore (who had fewer home runs in his career than Grady Sizemore has this season). It's anyone's guess who will win the American League award. It is possible that many voters, like many posters, decided long ago that it would be Longoria and aren't going to change their minds.

ondafarm
07-29-2008, 02:44 PM
I certainly think Alexei should get votes if he qualifies. Perhaps not first place votes but certainly seconds and thirds.

Optipessimism
07-29-2008, 02:46 PM
Stats aside, you can make the argument that considering how bad Cleveland and Detroit have been this year, without Alexei the Sox could still be in or around first place. I don't think you can say the same thing about the Rays without Longoria.

TDog
07-29-2008, 02:51 PM
I certainly think Alexei should get votes if he qualifies. Perhaps not first place votes but certainly seconds and thirds.

Ramirez qualifies for the Rookie of the Year consideration in any case. Carlos May finished third in the 1969 vote and only played in 100 games. He actually won The Sporting News Rookie of the Year award, which is voted on by the players, but many writers didn't vote him higher or at all because they believed his career was over and he had no future, the 100 games coming before he lost his thumb in a military training incident.

ondafarm
07-29-2008, 02:52 PM
In the ranking on Rankopedia, here, (http://www.rankopedia.com/ZoneID=3/11603/Who_will_be_the_American_League_(AL)_Rookie_of_the _Year_2008?/Step1/11992.htm) it appears that Alexei is currently placed 6th.

JorgeFabregas
07-29-2008, 02:59 PM
In the ranking on Rankopedia, here, (http://www.rankopedia.com/ZoneID=3/11603/Who_will_be_the_American_League_(AL)_Rookie_of_the _Year_2008?/Step1/11992.htm) it appears that Alexei is currently placed 6th.
Based on 8 votes. The power of the internet :D:.

They have Ellsbury first. Not going to happen.

Frater Perdurabo
07-29-2008, 03:01 PM
Alexei has yet to get major playing time in front of influential writers and ESPN talking heads from Boston and New York (he wasn't a major contributor when the Yankees came to play the Sox earlier this year).

If he keeps up his torrid pace, he could win it.

The Milkman
07-29-2008, 03:08 PM
I think TCM finishes second...I just don't see the media's mancrush on Eva quieting even though there is a legit argument to be made for TCM.

soxinem1
07-29-2008, 03:10 PM
At current pace, Longoria wins, Ramirez comes in second. Not bad considering many of us here, myself included, wanted him shipped out after the first month of the season.

Watching him grow as a big leaguer has been fun. His instincts are great for a guy who's never played in the states before, and defensively, he's been a breath of fresh air. His baserunning needs a bit of polishing, but that is about the only critique.

Longoria getting the muli-year extension after 15-20 games of MLB playing time was indeed a story, and he has responded well to that type of pressure. He is one of the reasons for the Rays better performance this year, and deservedly so.

But since we have more than two months of baseball left, there is time for further debate. It should be fun to watch.

TDog
07-29-2008, 03:15 PM
Alexei has yet to get major playing time in front of influential writers and ESPN talking heads from Boston and New York (he wasn't a major contributor when the Yankees came to play the Sox earlier this year).

If he keeps up his torrid pace, he could win it.

Perhaps, but two ballots will be mailed in from New York, and two ballots will be mailed in from Boston before the postseason begins. Two ballots will be mailed in from Detroit and two ballots will be mailed in from Kansas City etc. It's up to 28 writers.

ondafarm
07-29-2008, 03:19 PM
Based on 8 votes. The power of the internet :D:.

They have Ellsbury first. Not going to happen.

So vote.

hellview
07-29-2008, 03:21 PM
I would put Alexei behind Longoria and Joba right now.

Don't forget about David Murphy in Texas...

russ99
07-29-2008, 03:32 PM
I would put Alexei behind Longoria and Joba right now.

Don't forget about David Murphy in Texas...

Is Joba still a rookie? I thought he went over on the days-on-roster limit last season...

Also, a lot depends on how things play out the rest of the year. As it is now, Longoria would be the winner.

I'm also glad Alexei's putting up better numbers than Fukudome now. :tongue:

CHISOXFAN13
07-29-2008, 04:24 PM
In the ranking on Rankopedia, here, (http://www.rankopedia.com/ZoneID=3/11603/Who_will_be_the_American_League_(AL)_Rookie_of_the _Year_2008?/Step1/11992.htm) it appears that Alexei is currently placed 6th.

Behind the likes of Jeff Clement, who is hitting a robust .165 with five homers and 11 RBI.

What exactly was the point of posting that website?

hellview
07-29-2008, 04:26 PM
Is Joba still a rookie? I thought he went over on the days-on-roster limit last season...

Also, a lot depends on how things play out the rest of the year. As it is now, Longoria would be the winner.

I'm also glad Alexei's putting up better numbers than Fukudome now. :tongue:

Joba is still a rookie, he pitched under 50 innings last season and he wasn't on the roster for too long.

hose
07-29-2008, 04:36 PM
Longoria has it locked up.....not that I agree with that.

Save McCuddy's
07-29-2008, 05:10 PM
I'm much more interested in his chances of being ALCS MVP.

hose
07-29-2008, 05:22 PM
I'm much more interested in his chances of being ALCS MVP.

I'll drink to that.:gulp:

rwcescato
07-30-2008, 10:53 AM
Nope. Longoria wins.

As a member of the Chicago white Sox he has no chance. We get no respect of any kind. I know we have lost 2 straight to the Twins but has the
national media even said anything about this series. I dont think anyone is watching or paying attention or cares. Its sad but true.

sas1974
07-30-2008, 11:19 AM
Based on 8 votes. The power of the internet :D:.

They have Ellsbury first. Not going to happen.

I just single-handedly move him up to 4th. :D:

ondafarm
07-30-2008, 11:25 AM
I just single-handedly move him up to 4th. :D:

Great. Thanks.

TDog
07-30-2008, 01:42 PM
As a member of the Chicago white Sox he has no chance. We get no respect of any kind. I know we have lost 2 straight to the Twins but has the
national media even said anything about this series. I dont think anyone is watching or paying attention or cares. Its sad but true.

Tuesday, while driving back from the post office, there was a sportswriter on KNBR in San Francisco doing a telephone interview talking about baseball in general before he said Jermaine Dye is worthy of MVP consideration but being overshadowed by Carlos Quentin. The host had brough up the fact that Dye was in the top 10 in a number of categories. The host also said Quentin is Kenny Williams "get-out-of-jail -free card" when people complain about his mistakes, such as giving $5 million to Octavio Dotel. Before the end of the segment, the announcer talked about the great series going on between the White Sox and Twins.

I don't know if it was a national sports show. But they were talking about the Sox on the flagship station of the San Francisco Giants.

No one in the national media cared about the Sox in the 1980s, but Ron Kittle and Ozzie Guillen still managed to be named rookies of the year.

ondafarm
07-30-2008, 02:40 PM
Tuesday, while driving back from the post office, there was a sportswriter on KNBR in San Francisco doing a telephone interview talking about baseball in general before he said Jermaine Dye is worthy of MVP consideration but being overshadowed by Carlos Quentin. The host had brough up the fact that Dye was in the top 10 in a number of categories. The host also said Quentin is Kenny Williams "get-out-of-jail -free card" when people complain about his mistakes, such as giving $5 million to Octavio Dotel. Before the end of the segment, the announcer talked about the great series going on between the White Sox and Twins.

I don't know if it was a national sports show. But they were talking about the Sox on the flagship station of the San Francisco Giants.

No one in the national media cared about the Sox in the 1980s, but Ron Kittle and Ozzie Guillen still managed to be named rookies of the year.

TDog, not to counter your arguement, but I'm wondering how much discussion of Dye on KNBR is affected by the fact that he's from Vacaville, somewhat borderline Bay Area. I know whenever I went to Travis AFB while wearing my Sox cap, the local types would always ask me about JD.

TDog
07-30-2008, 03:41 PM
TDog, not to counter your arguement, but I'm wondering how much discussion of Dye on KNBR is affected by the fact that he's from Vacaville, somewhat borderline Bay Area. I know whenever I went to Travis AFB while wearing my Sox cap, the local types would always ask me about JD.

The discussion started out with Dye having a chance to be the MVP without being an all-star (because the people select the all-stars don't know what they're doing, the writer said) and moved on to the White Sox. I don't know how they got onto Dye because I was flipping between stations. They seemed to be talking about the pennant races and the trade deadline. But they went on to Quentin in some detail, talking about how he looks like a little Jose Canseco at the plate. (That wasn't a steroid reference, that was a reference to Quentin appearing at the plate to be just as menacing a hitter as Canseco in his best days in Oakland.) They didn't talk about Ramirez, but they talked quite a bit about the White Sox in general.

ondafarm
07-30-2008, 03:57 PM
The discussion started out with Dye having a chance to be the MVP without being an all-star (because the people select the all-stars don't know what they're doing, the writer said) and moved on to the White Sox. I don't know how they got onto Dye because I was flipping between stations. They seemed to be talking about the pennant races and the trade deadline. But they went on to Quentin in some detail, talking about how he looks like a little Jose Canseco at the plate. (That wasn't a steroid reference, that was a reference to Quentin appearing at the plate to be just as menacing a hitter as Canseco in his best days in Oakland.) They didn't talk about Ramirez, but they talked quite a bit about the White Sox in general.

Sorry, not arguing with you at all. Agree with all of those points.

Eddo144
07-30-2008, 08:51 PM
I don't know if it was a national sports show. But they were talking about the Sox on the flagship station of the San Francisco Giants.

No one in the national media cared about the Sox in the 1980s, but Ron Kittle and Ozzie Guillen still managed to be named rookies of the year.
Well put, TDog. There are so many Sox fans (and not just on these boards, I believe my uncle is the absolute worst there is) suffering from a disease I like to call South Side Paranoia. No matter how much evidence to the contrary, they'll always insist that the Sox get zero national recognition and will sometimes even claim they get zero local recognition as well.

And you know what? I could care less how much national coverage the Sox get. As long as I get to watch them play (and win), I'm fine.

Domeshot17
07-30-2008, 10:43 PM
He won't win, and its not because everyone loves the Rays now and not the Sox, its because Longoria is an absolute stud, and he throws the leather. Alexei has a knack for making the great play, but he has made a lot of bone head plays this year, not covering bases, missing cut off locations, not catching the ball at 2nd (hes put 2 errors on Orlando in the last 2 days). Longoria deserves it.

guillen4life13
07-31-2008, 12:54 AM
I think TCM finishes second...I just don't see the media's mancrush on Eva quieting even though there is a legit argument to be made for TCM.

Watch out... playing on names to make them feminine doesn't go well here. It could be a typo.

And to rwcescato: Please don't tell me the Sox consistently get less attention than the Rays. If Ramirez and Longoria traded 2008 statistics, Ramirez would win ROY with more certainty than Longoria will win it this year.

So far, Longoria has shown that he deserves it.

ChiSoxFan7
07-31-2008, 01:41 AM
This is a serious thread.

Does Alexei have a shot at AL ROY? His main competition seems to be Evan Longoria of the Rays.

Here are their batting lines:

Player TEAM POS G AB R H 2B HR RBI BB SO SB OBP SLG AVG
E.Longoria TB 3B 95 345 51 96 26 19 61 41 89 6 .354 .525 .278
A.Ramirez CWS 2B 79 265 35 82 15 8 35 9 35 7 .331 .464 .309



In short, Alexei has a higher average, Longoria has more power and takes more walks, but strikesout a lot more. I see Alexei as having one other BIG issue. The number of plate appearances required to qualify for season records is 502 (that is 162 games x 3.1 PA /game) I don't know if Alexei can make it. He is at 265 and the White Sox have only 58 games left (one of which, the Baltimore home? game, he is already out of.) So in 57 games he needs 4.1 plate appearances per game. Unless Alexei moves to lead-off, I doubt he makes the 502 PA.

If Alexei did lead-off, overtake Longoria in hits, runs scored and OBP in addition to BA and maybe even SB, then I think he'd have a shot.

And if he bats over .500 for every game he's a lock....

His OBP will not be there this year. Patience is a virtue and he doesn't have it.
His SB will stay low b/c it seems (lately) he is in alot more hit and runs....

And b/c of the OBP he will not leadoff baring a trade or series of injuries....


so i guess if he did all that and E. Longoria tanked it then yes..



oh and don't forget the fact that E. Longoria has single handedly made the east even more accesbile for Eastern Seaboard Propaganda Network to talk about so there's one more thing that holds him back....damn you median coverage....

TDog
07-31-2008, 03:23 AM
...

His OBP will not be there this year. Patience is a virtue and he doesn't have it. ...

I have made my point in this thread.

But when posters start arguing that Ramirez doesn't have the on-base percentage to be elected Rookie of the Year, I have to laugh.

Most baseball fans can tell you Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941. Few can tell you his on-base percentage was .553. I don't know if that's a record because it is an obscur and certainly secondary stat. And Ted Williams wasn't even the MVP that year. Nellie Fox had an on-base percentage only .074 higher than his batting average the year he won the MVP.

I'm not interested in debating the importance of on-base-percentages. I'm only saying that it is ridiculous to believe a player with a high batting average would be found lacking in worthiness for the Rookie of the Year Award because he didn't walk more.

grv1974
07-31-2008, 03:37 AM
Who's Al Roy?

chaerulez
07-31-2008, 10:39 AM
I have made my point in this thread.

But when posters start arguing that Ramirez doesn't have the on-base percentage to be elected Rookie of the Year, I have to laugh.

Most baseball fans can tell you Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941. Few can tell you his on-base percentage was .553. I don't know if that's a record because it is an obscur and certainly secondary stat. And Ted Williams wasn't even the MVP that year. Nellie Fox had an on-base percentage only .074 higher than his batting average the year he won the MVP.

I'm not interested in debating the importance of on-base-percentages. I'm only saying that it is ridiculous to believe a player with a high batting average would be found lacking in worthiness for the Rookie of the Year Award because he didn't walk more.

Having a OBP of .074 higher than your average is pretty good.

TDog
07-31-2008, 02:16 PM
Having a OBP of .074 higher than your average is pretty good.


Not as good as hitting .306.

Eddo144
07-31-2008, 03:16 PM
Not as good as hitting .306.
Having an OBP of .380 is indeed better than hitting .306, though the two don't exist in a vacuum.

And OBP is only a "secondary" stat because 100+ years ago, someone decided to list "hits divided by plate appearances in which you did not walk or hit into a sacrifice" instead of "times you didn't make out divided by total number of plate appearances." They're both a simple, yet flawed, method to determine how well a player performed.

I know you understand AVG better than OBP. There's nothing wrong with that, AVG has been listed and cited much more over the last 100+ years of professional baseball. But just because something is familiar doesn't make it better. Lately, OBP has been getting more popular, in part because organizations and individuals have noticed that it correlates better with scoring runs than batting average does.

More people knowing Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941 than knowing what his OBP was that year doesn't prove anything. It's likely that more people would recognize the name Derek Jeter than Alexei Ramirez, but that doesn't mean the former is better.

ondafarm
07-31-2008, 03:24 PM
Having a OBP of .074 higher than your average is pretty good.

Is it? If you have 400 AB in a year and your BA is .250 that means 100 hits. If your OBP is .324 (.074 higher) then you have had 44 walks/ HBP over 444 PA.

444 PA means you are a semi-regular probably playing in about 120 games a year. That's about what Michael Cuddyer plays for the Twins or Ryan Sweeney for the A's or Buck for the Royals, Johjima for the M's, Eric Hinske for the Jays or Julio Lugo of the Red Sox is doing for this season.

If any of those guys had only 44 walks + HBP in a season, he would be considered a poor OBP guy.

TDog
07-31-2008, 03:29 PM
Having an OBP of .380 is indeed better than hitting .306, though the two don't exist in a vacuum.

And OBP is only a "secondary" stat because 100+ years ago, someone decided to list "hits divided by plate appearances in which you did not walk or hit into a sacrifice" instead of "times you didn't make out divided by total number of plate appearances." They're both a simple, yet flawed, method to determine how well a player performed.

I know you understand AVG better than OBP. There's nothing wrong with that, AVG has been listed and cited much more over the last 100+ years of professional baseball. But just because something is familiar doesn't make it better. Lately, OBP has been getting more popular, in part because organizations and individuals have noticed that it correlates better with scoring runs than batting average does.

More people knowing Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941 than knowing what his OBP was that year doesn't prove anything. It's likely that more people would recognize the name Derek Jeter than Alexei Ramirez, but that doesn't mean the former is better.

Faulty analogies notwithstanding, OBP is a secondary stat because people who hit are more exciting to watch than people who walk. People go to the ballpark to see people hit. A game-ending sacrifice fly is more exciting and requires more hitting ability than a game-ending walk (or hit by pitch, for that matter). The game-ending sacrifice fly, however, lowers the hitter's OBP. (I think it should also lower a hitter's batting average, but that isn't the present point.) There was at least one season in the National League pre-1900 that walks counted as hits in computing batting averages, but consensus determined that to be unsatisfactory.

I'm not saying it isn't important to get on base. I'm saying a high batting average is more impressive than a high on-base percentage. It always has been and among most people who watch baseball, it always will be.

I have never seen anyone not win the Rookie of the Year award for lack of walking. Ozzie Guillen is one of the many Latin players who won the award after demonstrating that they were difficult to walk.

Eddo144
07-31-2008, 04:22 PM
Faulty analogies notwithstanding, OBP is a secondary stat because people who hit are more exciting to watch than people who walk. People go to the ballpark to see people hit. A game-ending sacrifice fly is more exciting and requires more hitting ability than a game-ending walk (or hit by pitch, for that matter). The game-ending sacrifice fly, however, lowers the hitter's OBP. (I think it should also lower a hitter's batting average, but that isn't the present point.) There was at least one season in the National League pre-1900 that walks counted as hits in computing batting averages, but consensus determined that to be unsatisfactory.

I'm not saying it isn't important to get on base. I'm saying a high batting average is more impressive than a high on-base percentage. It always has been and among most people who watch baseball, it always will be.

I have never seen anyone not win the Rookie of the Year award for lack of walking. Ozzie Guillen is one of the many Latin players who won the award after demonstrating that they were difficult to walk.
OK, you're right, my analogy was crappy. I'll give you that.

But why is AVG better just because a hit is more exciting? Most of the time, hitting into a triple play is more exciting that getting a routine single. Does that mean a triple play is better for the hitter?

And you're absolutely, 100% correct that hits are better than walks. However, AVG does not count walks as having any value. That's wrong. AVG also doesn't differentiate between singles, doubles, etc. (Granted, neither does OBP, which is why EqA is better, though I'm not a fan of using statistics adjusted to era in casual discussion.)

A high batting average can be more impressive than a high OBP, I'll give you that. This is because a high batting average contributes to high OBP anyways. And it's not always the case that high AVG is more impressive. If all you hit are singles (think Placido Polanco or David Eckstein), your hits aren't really all that much better than walks.

If you truly want to reward hitting over walking, I'd say SLG is better than AVG. You can't honestly tell me you'd rather have a guy who hits .310 with only 10 doubles and 10 HR over a guy who hits .290 with 30 doubles and 30 HR, would you? The second guy's SLG will almost certainly be higher.

TDog
07-31-2008, 05:06 PM
You're welcome to look at baseball any way you choose. If you're not making White Sox personnel decisions, you won't affect my enjoyment of the game.

My point is that I have never seen anyone named Rookie of the Year or deprived of the honor on the basis of on-base percentage.

Adele_H
07-31-2008, 06:25 PM
Longoria has a good approach hitting the ball to opposite field with power.

When Alexei starts doing it, his number will "sexy up" in a hurry

Someone teach him a crossover step too

ondafarm
07-31-2008, 09:27 PM
Faulty analogies notwithstanding, OBP is a secondary stat because people who hit are more exciting to watch than people who walk. People go to the ballpark to see people hit. A game-ending sacrifice fly is more exciting and requires more hitting ability than a game-ending walk (or hit by pitch, for that matter). The game-ending sacrifice fly, however, lowers the hitter's OBP. (I think it should also lower a hitter's batting average, but that isn't the present point.) .

A sacrifice fly doesn't lower a batters OBP or his BA.

Eddo144
08-01-2008, 10:57 AM
You're welcome to look at baseball any way you choose. If you're not making White Sox personnel decisions, you won't affect my enjoyment of the game.

My point is that I have never seen anyone named Rookie of the Year or deprived of the honor on the basis of on-base percentage.
Fine, I doubt anyone's ever come out and said "I didn't vote for so-and-so because of his lower OBP." However, I'm fairly confident that at least a few voters use it to analyze players.

And this isn't about enjoyment, it's about player performance. I enjoy watching Nick Swisher play more than any other Sox player. Does that mean I think every player should be like him? No, of course not. If you really try to determine what wins baseball games and then bring enjoyment into your analysis, you've missed the point somewhere.

I enjoy eating junk food and drinking beer, but that doesn't mean I'd advocate either action as a healthy choice. You enjoy watching exciting plays, but that doesn't mean you should advocate them over more successful plays when building a team.

Adele_H
08-01-2008, 11:37 AM
A sacrifice fly doesn't lower a batters OBP or his BA.

People denigrating the concept of a BB (walk) don't know much about baseball.

TDog
08-02-2008, 01:12 AM
A sacrifice fly doesn't lower a batters OBP or his BA.

Read Rule 10.21 (f). In figuring on-base percentages, you divide the sum of hits, walks and times hit by pitch by the sum of at bats, walks, times hit by pitch and sacrifice flies. You have to add sacrifice flies because they are not included in at bats. You don't add sacrifice bunts.

For the purposes of batting averages, sacrifice flies don't count as times at bat. They are times when a player does not reach base, so they must be added.. Sacrifice bunts, on the other hand, ostensibly are concessions of outs on order of the bench and, if successful, are not counted as plate appearances in figuring on-base percentages. Thee have been times in the history of baseball when sacrifice flies lowered hitters' batting averages. When Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941, he was charged with at bats every time he drove in a run with a fly ball. Had there been no at bat charged for a sacrifice fly, he would have hit .411. I believe hitters should be charged with times at bat for sacrifice flies today. Regardless, for purposed of figuring on-base percentages, they count as plate appearance.

By the same token a player will have a hitting streak stopped if he has no official at bats but has at least one sacrifice fly. If a player has no official at bats but he has plate experiences that do not include any sacrifice flies, the streak is considered still active. A consecutive hit streak will continue after a walk or a sacrifice bunt, but will end with a sacrifice fly.

Because on-base percentage is a secondary stat, I shouldn't be surprised that people don't fully understand how it's calculated.

This is ancillary to my original point, that there is no reason to believe Alexei Ramirez won't get Rookie of the Year votes because he doesn't walk much. When Ozzie Guillen was elected American League Rookie of the Year, his batting average was .273 and his on-base-percentage was .291. Nomar Garciapara won the award with a batting average of .306 and an on-base percentage of .342. He came up to bat well over 700 times in his rookie season and walked only 35 times.

BleacherBandit
08-02-2008, 01:27 AM
Heh, I'd vote for Evan Longoria. He shares my first name......

Alexei is a great player, and he's currently hitting the best average on the team since JD hit 0-4 tonight. But I don't support giving the ROY award to a player who had 'professional' experience in another country.

Shoeless
08-02-2008, 12:13 PM
But I don't support giving the ROY award to a player who had 'professional' experience in another country.
I guess that's debatable one way or another. I heard guys on the radio talking about Fukudome (obviously this was a long time ago) or Soto for NL ROY, and they thought they should give it to the younger of the two because Fukudome had played for a long time. On the other hand, I've heard people say that Cuba is like AA ball. Alexei had never seen pro pitching, so I feel as though he's fair game for ROY.