PDA

View Full Version : Gammons: Beckham "undoubtably" Rookie of the Year


Shoeless
08-18-2009, 01:22 PM
Per Chicago Sportscenter on espnchicago.com

oeo
08-18-2009, 01:24 PM
There's no one even close.

Whappeh
08-18-2009, 01:32 PM
And if it weren't for Evan Longoria, the Sox could of had back-to-back.

RedHeadPaleHoser
08-18-2009, 01:33 PM
It would be nice. He definitely deserves it.

Pear-Zin-Ski
08-18-2009, 01:40 PM
As wild as the season has been so far, I must say that Beck is the one guy that has kept me very interested in the team this year. He has such a bright future with The Sox and I'm looking forward to seeing him play on the southside for many years to come!

illinifan1368
08-18-2009, 01:41 PM
He was the only ESPN guy to pick Beckham before the year so he is looking for some props.

doublem23
08-18-2009, 02:05 PM
He was the only ESPN guy to pick Beckham before the year so he is looking for some props.

No shame in boasting when you're right.

DumpJerry
08-18-2009, 02:14 PM
Gordon was endorsed by Jeter when the Yanks were here. That's all ESON needs to anoint him.

Hitmen77
08-18-2009, 02:19 PM
And if it weren't for Evan Longoria, the Sox could of had back-to-back.

Maybe they'll get the back-to-back ROYs next year when Dan Hudson wins it.

Ron Karkovice
08-18-2009, 02:23 PM
Maybe they'll get the back-to-back ROYs next year when Dan Hudson wins it.


Pink Police!

soxfanatlanta
08-18-2009, 02:37 PM
Were it not for the perfect game, he would be the story of the year.

DumpJerry
08-18-2009, 02:40 PM
Pink Police!
What seems to be the problem? Deep pink=wishful thoughts.

everafan
08-18-2009, 02:49 PM
Per Chicago Sportscenter on espnchicago.com

Say what you want about Gammons, but back when Bacon was playing AZ fall ball he said that Bacon would be the Sox starting 2B by June. Got the position wrong but it could have easily went that way. He also picked Bacon as ROY BEFORE THE SEASON STARTED.

Kizzy08
08-18-2009, 03:09 PM
I sure hope y'all are right, but I think Elvis Andrus makes a pretty strong case too. Pretty good offensive SS with great basestealing skills and arguably the best defense in the AL.

Still, my vote goes to Beckham :redneck

SephClone89
08-18-2009, 03:44 PM
The word is "undoubtedly".

Metalthrasher442
08-18-2009, 03:46 PM
The word is "undoubtedly".

Lmao ah come on he was close enough sir.

PalehosePlanet
08-18-2009, 03:57 PM
I think Jeff Niemann, the Tampa SP, will be Beckham's biggest competition.

Niemann is 10-5 w/a 3.86 era.

Dibbs
08-18-2009, 03:59 PM
Awesome! What about that Bailey for Oakland? His numbers are really good. Does anyone have any thoughts on if he could win it?

munchman33
08-18-2009, 04:04 PM
Were it not for the perfect game, he would be the story of the year.



Bull****. The story of the year is our 2009 World Series Championship.

illinifan1368
08-18-2009, 04:12 PM
I think Jeff Niemann, the Tampa SP, will be Beckham's biggest competition.

Niemann is 10-5 w/a 3.86 era.
If it wasn't for KC and Oakland, his stats wouldn't look good at all.

TDog
08-18-2009, 04:13 PM
I sure hope y'all are right, but I think Elvis Andrus makes a pretty strong case too. Pretty good offensive SS with great basestealing skills and arguably the best defense in the AL.

Still, my vote goes to Beckham :redneck

When I was driving from the train station after Friday's A's game, some people on the radio were talking about the AL Rookie of the Year race. The expert said Beckham is currently No. 1 of about 10 guys who could win it. Andrus was pretty far down his list.

There are a few pitchers that he named -- Bergesen, and I think he would have named Anderson from Oakland. He might have named Porcello. His point was there was "no one dominate rookie like last year."

Last year there wasn't just one dominate rookie either. If Longoria had played for the Orioles or Mariners, I doubt he would have received nearly the attention that he did and Ramirez would have received more attention and have been considered the dominate rookie. Ramirez had so many big hits last year after getting off to such a slow start. Of course, the capper was the grand slam in Game 162, by which time the ballots for rookie of the year were already cast. I'm sure it helps that Beckham is one of the leaders with the White Sox in the pennant race.

You never know what the voters are thinking, of course. Some consider the rookie of the year to be the rookie that has the best season. Others consider it sort of a most valuable rookie award, putting stats secondary to how much they helped a successful team. Others vote for the rookie they believe has the brightest future. White Sox fans might believe Beckham would sweep on all three counts.

If Beckham plays the rest of the season as he did in Oakland this weekend, there shouldn't be any question of who to vote for. If he plays as he did in Seattle and as he did Monday night, the award clearly would be up for grabs.

hawkjt
08-18-2009, 05:52 PM
I have gotten to the point where I am really surprised when he does not square it up at every at bat.

areilly
08-18-2009, 06:00 PM
Everyone knows Gammons loves the Red Sox, but I've always respected his ability to see the good in other teams beyond Fenway Park. His expectations for Beckham aren't anything new, either: last year following the draft, Gammons said on Baseball Tonight something to the effect of "I can't believe seven teams passed on this kid."

sox102
08-18-2009, 06:02 PM
The word is "undoubtedly".

Supposably? :D:

UChicagoHP
08-18-2009, 06:20 PM
Brad Bergeson(who?) of the Orioles has had an excellent rookie season as well.

DumpJerry
08-18-2009, 06:31 PM
Even though he is not going to win RoY, Chris Getz of the White Sox is leading the rookies in offensive categories that Beckham isn't.

The Sox' rookie class is shaping to be a bunch of studs with Beckham and Getz. Nix is not bad for a rookie, either (among the leaders among rookies for HRs). If we are able to follow up with Hudson and Mitchell next year...look out AL East!

Over By There
08-18-2009, 06:51 PM
Bull****. The story of the year is our 2009 World Series Championship.

:looks twice at user name and walks away in disbelief:

Craig Grebeck
08-18-2009, 07:09 PM
Ricky Romero has been pretty good as well.

thomas35forever
08-18-2009, 08:00 PM
I'll be damned if Beckham doesn't get the award. IMO, Andrew Bailey is the biggest possibility to take the award away, but I haven't heard of anyone else really standing out the way Beckham has. He's going to be a stud in this league for years.

FarmerAndy
08-19-2009, 03:51 PM
I think Niemann and Bergesen have both had fine seasons for rookie starting pitchers. Especially Bergesen........ he won't rack up that impressive win total because he's had an inconsistent Orioles offense behind him. The guy has a quality start just about every time out.

If you'd asked me about AL ROY a couple of months ago, I would've thrown my hat in the ring for Nolan Reimold. But due to a crowded outfield and, in my opinion, poor judgement, they haven't given him any sort of regular playing time.

The O's have a pretty impressive young crop. If they play their cards right, they could build a contender in the near future.

But yeah, I think Beckham should be the clear favorite to win this year. He's just plain good, no question about it.

To people who think that Ramirez could've / should've beat out Longoria for ROY last year - No way. Longoria was the most deserving, with Ramirez in a distant 2nd. They got it right.

34 Inch Stick
08-19-2009, 05:15 PM
Were it not for the perfect game, he would be the story of the year.



Right behind the playoff run and World Series victory.

Waysouthsider
08-20-2009, 12:49 AM
The kid is phenomenal...I'm just glad we were there to see his first hit at the cell with my kids.....hopefully my son will remember forever.

fram40
08-20-2009, 09:29 AM
as of yesterday, Beckham was third in USA Today voting for ROY

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/mlb-power-rankings.htm

Dibbs
08-20-2009, 10:12 AM
as of yesterday, Beckham was third in USA Today voting for ROY

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/mlb-power-rankings.htm

Exactly how does Elvis Andrus get more votes than "Goron" Beckham?

Marqhead
08-20-2009, 10:25 AM
Exactly how does Elvis Andrus get more votes than "Goron" Beckham?

If Texas makes the playoffs and the Sox don't, Adrus' case will be bolstered.

UofCSoxFan
08-20-2009, 10:28 AM
The ranking of the Sox 3 spots below the Cubs is interesting as well. The USA Today is an awful newspaper.

Eddo144
08-20-2009, 11:06 AM
Exactly how does Elvis Andrus get more votes than "Goron" Beckham?
Because shortstop defense is really important, and Andrus is excellent in that facet of the game.

Right now, I'd say it's a tossup between Andrus and Beckham. If Beckham continues to hit, though, he'll win going away.

Dibbs
08-20-2009, 01:41 PM
Because shortstop defense is really important, and Andrus is excellent in that facet of the game.

Right now, I'd say it's a tossup between Andrus and Beckham. If Beckham continues to hit, though, he'll win going away.

Well I hope he is the next Ozzie Smith with the glove because Beckham kills him in almost every offensive category with 100 less at bats.

DumpJerry
08-20-2009, 01:47 PM
as of yesterday, Beckham was third in USA Today voting for ROY

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/mlb-power-rankings.htm
Second, not third place.

These are votes from USA Today staff, not the people who actually vote for the award.

If Texas makes the playoffs and the Sox don't, Adrus' case will be bolstered.
The voting ends before the regular season ends.

Iwritecode
08-20-2009, 01:57 PM
The voting ends before the regular season ends.

That has never made sense to me.

Vestigio
08-20-2009, 02:06 PM
If Texas makes the playoffs and the Sox don't, Adrus' case will be bolstered.

I dont think that makes much of a difference. Very few rookies have carried their team to the postseason, nor should they be reliant on doing so. Now if we are talking about MVP, that would be a different story. The ROY should go to the best player regardless of the team he plays on.

Marqhead
08-20-2009, 02:10 PM
The voting ends before the regular season ends.

I was not aware of that, thanks. If both teams are in the running than it shouldn't matter.

I dont think that makes much of a difference. Very few rookies have carried their team to the postseason, nor should they be reliant on doing so. Now if we are talking about MVP, that would be a different story. The ROY should go to the best player regardless of the team he plays on.

Andrus is having a very nice year. I still think Beckham should and will win it, but that doesn't mean that both players shouldn't be recognized for having terrific rookie seasons.

JermaineDye05
08-20-2009, 02:15 PM
Exactly how does Elvis Andrus get more votes than "Goron" Beckham?

http://www.zelda-infinite.com/z-images/goron.gif
I think I like this better than Bacon.

Vestigio
08-20-2009, 02:21 PM
Andrus is having a very nice year. I still think Beckham should and will win it, but that doesn't mean that both players shouldn't be recognized for having terrific rookie seasons.

I understand that Andrus is having a decent season, but I just dont think that Beckham or anyother rookie in the past should be held accountable for their team not making the playoffs

Marqhead
08-20-2009, 02:35 PM
I understand that Andrus is having a decent season, but I just dont think that Beckham or anyother rookie in the past should be held accountable for their team not making the playoffs

I think the same way about the MVP, but that doesn't always happen either.

TDog
08-20-2009, 02:36 PM
I dont think that makes much of a difference. Very few rookies have carried their team to the postseason, nor should they be reliant on doing so. Now if we are talking about MVP, that would be a different story. The ROY should go to the best player regardless of the team he plays on.

Unless baseball has changed things, the ballots are due in either the last day of the regular season or the day after the regular season ends. Last year when Ramirez hit the grand slam in Game 162, the ballots were already turned in. Of course, some voters send their ballots in early because they know they have made up their mind.

Last year, as it turned out, the only players even mentioned for the award were leading their teams to division titles. That means a lot because players performing under pressure always make a better impression when they succeed.

Most Valuable Player, Rookie of the Year and Cy Young only encompass the regular season, of course, because they are regular season awards. And, as I mentioned earlier, I have talked to writers who have voted on the award, and have found different people have different ideas about what the award means.

It it were about stats, though, there wouldn't be voting, just a spreadsheet formula to produce rookie ratings with the award going to the rookie with the highest rating.

Shoeless
08-20-2009, 04:25 PM
http://www.zelda-infinite.com/z-images/goron.gif
I think I like this better than Bacon.

I think I might die laughing.

FielderJones
08-20-2009, 05:19 PM
Exactly how does Elvis Andrus get more votes than "Goron" Beckham?

They must be rating defense way over offense, for Andrus to have ten more power points than Beckham. In 36 fewer games played, Beckham has 8 more XBH, twice as many RBI, and a far superior batting line (.297/.379/.477 to .270/.334/.385). :scratch:

UofCSoxFan
08-21-2009, 10:54 AM
I think the same way about the MVP, but that doesn't always happen either.

See...to me they ARE different. ROY goes to the best rookie...its the best rookie of the year.

The MVP award is not the Player of the Year award. If it was the Player of the Year award it would be called that and you could then ignore team performance. It is the most valuable player award...what player had the biggest impact to its team. If you hit 60 hrs and drive in 140 rbi and your team finishes 10 games back, really how valuable are you? Granted its not your fault your team didn't make the playoffs, but removing you from said team would have had little impact, if the goal is to make the playoffs and win championships.

Not to mention how much easier it is to get your stats when your team is out and you can just swing from the heals every at bat.

asindc
08-21-2009, 11:52 AM
See...to me they ARE different. ROY goes to the best rookie...its the best rookie of the year.

The MVP award is not the Player of the Year award. If it was the Player of the Year award it would be called that and you could then ignore team performance. It is the most valuable player award...what player had the biggest impact to its team. If you hit 60 hrs and drive in 140 rbi and your team finishes 10 games back, really how valuable are you? Granted its not your fault your team didn't make the playoffs, but removing you from said team would have had little impact, if the goal is to make the playoffs and win championships.

Not to mention how much easier it is to get your stats when your team is out and you can just swing from the heals every at bat.

I agree with this. Furthermore, I don't remember anyone relating a team's success to the ROY in the past. I just think that some members of the USA Today Sports Dept. are not aware of Beckham like they should be.

TDog
08-21-2009, 12:29 PM
See...to me they ARE different. ROY goes to the best rookie...its the best rookie of the year.

The MVP award is not the Player of the Year award. If it was the Player of the Year award it would be called that and you could then ignore team performance. It is the most valuable player award...what player had the biggest impact to its team. If you hit 60 hrs and drive in 140 rbi and your team finishes 10 games back, really how valuable are you? Granted its not your fault your team didn't make the playoffs, but removing you from said team would have had little impact, if the goal is to make the playoffs and win championships.

Not to mention how much easier it is to get your stats when your team is out and you can just swing from the heals every at bat.

When you get a job as a beat reporter covering a major league team and you're selected to vote for rookie of the year, you have the authority to say what the award means.

Of course, your point about individual success being easier on a non-contending team, of course, applies to rookies, too, and often that is a voting consideration.

Many people who write about baseball don't pay attention to the White Sox. American League beat reporters, though, are awared of what Beckham is doing.

Johnny Mostil
08-21-2009, 12:39 PM
See...to me they ARE different. ROY goes to the best rookie...its the best rookie of the year.

The MVP award is not the Player of the Year award. If it was the Player of the Year award it would be called that and you could then ignore team performance. It is the most valuable player award...what player had the biggest impact to its team. If you hit 60 hrs and drive in 140 rbi and your team finishes 10 games back, really how valuable are you? Granted its not your fault your team didn't make the playoffs, but removing you from said team would have had little impact, if the goal is to make the playoffs and win championships.

Not to mention how much easier it is to get your stats when your team is out and you can just swing from the heals every at bat.

On that note, I must admit here the '87 Cubs were perhaps my favorite rendition of North Side baseball. An MVP, a pitcher that finished second (by only two points) in the Cy Young balloting--and a last-place finish.

Eddo144
08-21-2009, 01:19 PM
It it were about stats, though, there wouldn't be voting, just a spreadsheet formula to produce rookie ratings with the award going to the rookie with the highest rating.
Or, you know, there could be multiple ways of interpreting stats. :shrug:

The MVP award is not the Player of the Year award. If it was the Player of the Year award it would be called that and you could then ignore team performance. It is the most valuable player award...what player had the biggest impact to its team. If you hit 60 hrs and drive in 140 rbi and your team finishes 10 games back, really how valuable are you? Granted its not your fault your team didn't make the playoffs, but removing you from said team would have had little impact, if the goal is to make the playoffs and win championships.

Not to mention how much easier it is to get your stats when your team is out and you can just swing from the heals every at bat.
So Joe Mauer, who is having a historically good year for any position, let alone catcher, should get no MVP recognition? I'm all for using team record as a factor, but only when it's close.

And the name of the award is irrelevant. Here is the exact voting criteria for the MVP award (emphasis mine):
1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.
2. Number of games played.
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
4. Former winners are eligible.
5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.
Strength a player's teammate is not included in the voting criteria, just an individual player's strength of offense and defense. Is there a single player with stronger offense and defense in the AL this year than Joe Mauer?

KenBerryGrab
08-21-2009, 01:25 PM
You can't underestimate how much playing well against the Yankees -- and the ensuing love from Jeter -- will weigh on the voting for Beckham.

cws05champ
08-21-2009, 03:05 PM
You can't underestimate how much playing well against the Yankees -- and the ensuing love from Jeter -- will weigh on the voting for Beckham.

True...if Beckham rip up the Red Sox and Yankees on this next road trip, he'll suddenly be best thing since sliced bread and be the favorite in the media. Should I say the best thing since sliced Bacon?

TDog
08-21-2009, 03:55 PM
Or, you know, there could be multiple ways of interpreting stats. :shrug: ...

But it's not. Sometimes players who have great seasons have the stats to back them up and win MVP or Rookie of the Year -- or both in the case of Fred Lynn. And his stats weren't much better than his rookie teammate Jim Rice, who was second in the Rookie of the Year vote and third in the MVP vote.

Zoilo Versalles was named the AL MVP in 1965 with a .273 batting average, a .313 on-base percentage and a league-leading 122 strikeouts. He only hit 19 home runs, fifth most on his team. He was third on his teams in RBIs, though.

Many fans think it's about stats, but the writers who vote for the awards that I've talked to insist it is not.

Foulke You
08-21-2009, 05:46 PM
True...if Beckham rip up the Red Sox and Yankees on this next road trip, he'll suddenly be best thing since sliced bread and be the favorite in the media. Should I say the best thing since sliced Bacon?
I agree. Beating up on NY at home was a good start for Beckham to get national attention but if he lights up the Carmines and Yanks in their own ballyards, he will have this thing wrapped up.

Quentin08
08-21-2009, 06:46 PM
http://www.zelda-infinite.com/z-images/goron.gif
I think I like this better than Bacon.

LOLLOL :rolling: ..there's so many things that I wanna say..

Waysouthsider
08-21-2009, 09:36 PM
What was Ozzie saying...if you see him up here we're in real trouble?

More trouble like that we need!!!!


:redface:

ajgirl
08-21-2009, 10:30 PM
Bacon WILL be Rookie of the Year! Positive thoughts, people!

Eddo144
08-21-2009, 11:07 PM
But it's not. Sometimes players who have great seasons have the stats to back them up and win MVP or Rookie of the Year -- or both in the case of Fred Lynn. And his stats weren't much better than his rookie teammate Jim Rice, who was second in the Rookie of the Year vote and third in the MVP vote.

Zoilo Versalles was named the AL MVP in 1965 with a .273 batting average, a .313 on-base percentage and a league-leading 122 strikeouts. He only hit 19 home runs, fifth most on his team. He was third on his teams in RBIs, though.

Many fans think it's about stats, but the writers who vote for the awards that I've talked to insist it is not.
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say, here, TDog. You responded to "maybe there are multiple ways to interpret the stats" with "but it's not." :scratch:

Versalles's MVP is actually somewhat indicative of modern stathead thinking. He had a decent year at the plate (remember, 1965 was smack in the middle of the lowest offensive levels of the live-ball era) and, by all accounts, was an excellent defensive shortstop. A decent-hitting, great-fielding shortstop is definitely more valuable than a good-hitting, average-fielding first baseman, for example.

In fact, this is why most statheads will tell you that Teixeira is a silly choice for MVP; he's not even the most valuable Yankee this year (hint: there's a shortstop who doesn't have the raw offensive stats, but is good defensively for a change and is still an above-average hitter).

Now, throw in that the best hitter in the AL also plays the most demanding defensive position, and it's fairly obvious that Mauer is the MVP.

As for rookie of the year: well, Andrus is reportedly a wizard defensively, and he's OK at the plate. Sounds a lot like Versalles, no?

Basically, my point is that modern statistical analysis is actually valuing defense more highly than conventional analysis is, hence the consensus "stathead" opinion that guys like Rios and Adrian Beltre are worth what they're being paid.

Eddo144
08-21-2009, 11:13 PM
I think the same way about the MVP, but that doesn't always happen either.
I also agree with this sentiment (that an MVP-caliber player shouldn't be punished because the rest of his team wasn't good enough to make the playoffs).

fram40
08-27-2009, 05:10 PM
Gammons may believe that Beckham is "undoubtedly" ROY, but his colleague Jayson Stark would vote for Andrew Bailey if the season ended today (and if he had a vote - I don't believe he does)

He mentions Jeff Niemann and Ricky Romero before Beckham, but hedges at the end - September looms.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings090827

TDog
08-27-2009, 05:23 PM
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say, here, TDog. You responded to "maybe there are multiple ways to interpret the stats" with "but it's not." :scratch:

Versalles's MVP is actually somewhat indicative of modern stathead thinking. He had a decent year at the plate (remember, 1965 was smack in the middle of the lowest offensive levels of the live-ball era) and, by all accounts, was an excellent defensive shortstop. A decent-hitting, great-fielding shortstop is definitely more valuable than a good-hitting, average-fielding first baseman, for example.

In fact, this is why most statheads will tell you that Teixeira is a silly choice for MVP; he's not even the most valuable Yankee this year (hint: there's a shortstop who doesn't have the raw offensive stats, but is good defensively for a change and is still an above-average hitter).

Now, throw in that the best hitter in the AL also plays the most demanding defensive position, and it's fairly obvious that Mauer is the MVP.

As for rookie of the year: well, Andrus is reportedly a wizard defensively, and he's OK at the plate. Sounds a lot like Versalles, no?

Basically, my point is that modern statistical analysis is actually valuing defense more highly than conventional analysis is, hence the consensus "stathead" opinion that guys like Rios and Adrian Beltre are worth what they're being paid.

Versalles was not an MVP by any statistical measure certainly none that existed at the time. He was the MVP because he was the team spiritual and defensive leader and had some big hits.

Some people will vote for Andrus because they will believe he has the best future ahead of him. Some people won't vote for Bailey because he plays for a last place team. If Beckham continues to hit as he has since he left Oakland, he won't get any votes at all.

Some voters go by statistics. Others go by potential for future stardom. Others go by team leadership. The odd thing is that that there are voters (they change ever year) who may vote on statistics one year and team leadership or future potential the next.