My point is, ignoring statistics in baseball is like ignoring salt on a pretzel. Statistics are what the game is based on. It is what keeps us talking about it long after the season is over. In every other sport statistics are all based on the quality of players around you. An average running back can run for a thousand yards behind a great line, but no average hitter is going to hit .320 in baseball. It is why you still here people talking about Ruth and Aaron, but when was the last time you heard anyone talk about George Mikan or Otto Graham? 60 and 714 are magical numbers in baseball still, but how many people know what is the single season rushing record or season rushing totals in football?
And just because you can string some words together doesn't mean you know anything about baseball. I'll bet we can create quite a thread here about dubious MVP's in the sport in the past 10 years alone. Your arguments on this case are baseless, but if you kept to their respective stats you might have an argument. Oh, I forgot, stats are over rated.
A pretzel is still a pretzel without salt. Maybe you prefer salt, but others would rather have the pretzel plain or dipped in mustard. There is more than one way to go about making your pretzel tasty.
About the writers...
I do not get how a bunch of professional, educated writers could turn into this evil assortment of pea-brained biggots. Do you gain a vote in deciding races, such as the ROY voting, by committing honorable acts of ignorance?
A pretzel with salt is called a pretzel. A pretzel without salt is called dough. Damn, Savage, you must be from the left coast.
The fact is, there's no sure way to get these awards right. Players and managers each have their own biases and fans, if you are a fair representative, are lacking in common sense. The only way I can think of that would be the most accurate is if someone like the HOF or some other panel of experts would decide, but I suppose that is undemocratic.
Hehe, I just looked pretzel up in the dictionary and salt is in fact a key component of the definition. I should not have responded to the pretzel metaphor in the manner I did.
Don't get me wrong. I do find statistics essential. I just get tired of seeing them manipulated so often. Like harlots, you can get numbers to do anything that you want them to.
And, pertaining to the NL Rookie of the Year selection, how much do we all even know about the intricacies of the award?
The only thing I have heard about is how it was created in lieu of Jackie Robinson. Oh yeah, Jackie Robinson was a poster child for the arguement that ERA is the foundation for judging rookies pitchers, or any pitcher's stat for that matter.
It seems like most of the laws for Rookie of the Year selection are unwritten. Sure, it would be nice to have some jotted down, and more importantly, some pronounced consistency in the selection of the award. But, right now, given the lack of rules for its selection, I would say it is hard to criticize the end results of a ROY vote.
Well, alls I have to say is the writers are not doing their jobs. Ever since they gave the MVP to Dimaggio the year Williams won the triple crown because they didn't like Williams to when they gave the MVP to Mo Vaugn instead of Albert Belle because, again, they didn't like him. They're a joke and I have little respect for them