Did you tune out of baseball once football got going, thinking you wouldn't miss much? Think again. Fortunately, I've taken the the time to recap all the most important developments: https://t.co/QPrpkw1HGf
Rounding out my early rankings series with the hardest position to rank this time of year, relief pitcher. But hey, it got a little easier yesterday with the news of Grant Taylor going to the rotation and Emilio Pagan going to the Tigers: https://t.co/sTFY46rLwB
Rounding out my early rankings series with the hardest position to rank this time of year, relief pitcher. But hey, it got a little easier yesterday with the news of Grant Taylor going to the rotation and Emilio Pagan going to the Tigers: https://t.co/sTFY46rLwB
Woah, hey now! Have to imagine Pagan is first up to close for the Tigers. Over the past two years:
57 saves, 3.07 ERA, 0.96 WHIP, 21% K-BB rate
And being an extreme fly ball pitcher should fare well in Detroit!
If an aberrant vote changes the result of the voting, I get it a little more, but there's been a lot of hand-wringing this cycle over votes that ultimately held no sway.
I'm always baffled by the response to aberrant votes that don't change the result of the voting. The reason for an open-ended ballot is to have a variety of inputs. The minority ones are acknowledged but ultimately have no sway. There are other ways to determine a winner if the existence of minority inputs is itself a problem, but I actually like seeing a variety of viewpoints expressed.
As a BBWAA member, I had a vote for NL Rookie of the Year.
My ballot looked like this:
Wetherholt
Rumfield
Benge
McLean
Stewart
I didn't know before the results were unveiled last night how others voted. I didn't know I would actually be the lowest voter on Sal Stewart, the only person to place him 5th on their ballot.
I've gotten some flak from disgruntled Reds fans about where I placed the eventual winner of the award. I wanted to outline some of my thought process.
I had a Rookie of the Year vote once previously, when Corbin Carroll won it. Making out a ballot that year felt a lot more straightforward compared to this loaded list of worthy rookies.
Wetherholt led all NL rookies in Wins Above Replacement and was one of the top 20 players in WAR in the NL, not just among rookies.
He was the best defensive player in the sport aside from PCA. His defensive metrics seemed to back this up, though he didn't win the Gold Glove at 2B (and no, I didn't have a vote in that).
In addition to the superlative defense, he remained an above league-average contributor offensively, particularly in his role. Wetherholt led NL rookies in runs scored, which seemed to me to be a similar valuation to the way Reds supporters view Stewart, who led rookies in RBIs.
For a leadoff man, runs scored is the goal. For someone in Stewart's position in the lineup, the goal is driving in the runs. Both thrived at their objective. I, clearly, put weight into JJ's defensive value vs. where Sal didn't carry value on that side of the ball.
Carson Benge was a blend of strong offensive numbers with plus defense in the outfield. Probably the most well-rounded rookie, but perhaps without any standout characteristic to push up to the top of the ballot.
The order of the top three was a real challenge that I wrestled with. Benge drew the second-most 1st place votes and I can't argue with the logic behind those selections. Benge had 4.3 WAR, only narrowly behind Wetherholt (4.6), but admittedly ahead of Rumfield, who was only 2.6 per FanGraphs but 3.5 per Baseball Reference.
But the more I looked into TJ Rumfield's season, the more I was impressed. Did you realize he led the National League in OBP this season? Not just among rookies -- he led the entire NL.
Additionally, the Coors Field bump wasn't responsible for his standout offensive season. He had a better OBP on the road. His OPS was easily above every other name on my ballot.
Nolan McLean came next on my ballot. I struggled figuring out exactly where to draw the lines and place the only pitcher on my ballot. His numbers were really strong, and it's an age-old question how to weigh position players against pitchers in this award race. Logan Henderson merited consideration, too, but with only five spots on the ballot, he fell victim to the workload conversation. He didn't reach 100 big-league innings, as he spent a stint in AAA during the season.
Sal Stewart, of course, was worthy of the ballot. And truthfully, I wouldn't have had a huge issue with any of the five names I chose ultimately winning. Stewart's 30-100 season obviously won over enough of the voters for him to be selected as the winner.
But of the five players on my ballot, he was lowest in WAR (2.0) by a considerable margin. He contributed power and RBIs that exceeded the other candidates, but ultimately, landed fifth on my ballot due to some of the rate stats and other underlying numbers that pushed other candidates above him, for me.
At the end of the day, Sal Stewart is a deserving winner of the award and I enjoyed the process of putting together what ended up being an especially challenging ballot.
@rossjensen I've always interpreted "counting stats" to be those that follow typical counting rules, meaning whole numbers that increase one at a time. But I guess no one has ever spelled it out for me.
This would be my game plan:
1. Watch the two-part premiere, Encounter at Farpoint. It is *not* good, but it lays the foundation.
2. Skip the rest of Season 1.
3. Watch these four episodes in Season 2: Elementary Dear Data, A Matter of Honor, The Measure of a Man, Q Who.
4. Skip the rest of Season 2.
5. Watch Seasons 3-7. Most of 7 is not good, but by that point, you're well invested because of 3 through 6.
6. Go back and watch some of the episodes you skipped in Seasons 1 and 2, if you're curious.
@Ray_Devlin@doconnoronca Those (Locutus and Kamin) were the two, though, that were referenced in later episodes -- and fittingly, since I think they were the most transformative. I also think we can infer that Picard's eventual yearning for family was precipitated by his time as Kamin.
Jean-Luc Picard was a character who Meant Something.
Both in the amount of tragedy he endured ...
-Was stabbed in the heart in his youth, surviving with an artificial one
-Successfully reversed his assimilation by the Borg in what seemed like the most helpless of situations (though still forced to endure whispers of the hivemind because of irrevocably altered DNA).
-Had his consciousness abducted to live an entire second life as Kamin -- first defiantly, then begrudgingly, then wholeheartedly -- on the dying planet Kataan before being returned, just as abruptly, to resume his life as a Starfleet captain
-Was captured and tortured, both physically and psychologically, by the Cardassians, only to be rescued at his most broken point
-Flatlined on the operating table after being shot in his artificial heart, requiring Q to save him through a temporal intervention that forced him to confront his past regrets and ultimately reinvigorated his will to live
-Was absorbed by, then escaped from the Nexus, where he was seduced by a manifestation of the life he most deeply desired but could never have
-Realized far too late the importance of family and grieved for his missed opportunities
... And in the way he carried himself, with a poise and intensity that left no doubt whose ship it was. He *commanded* in a way that hasn't been depicted on screen before or since, and his unwavering competence and dutiful resolve made him one of my earliest role models.
Patrick Stewart wasn't Jean-Luc Picard, of course, but he's the only actor who could have made Picard what he was. And that makes me eternally grateful to him.