Matusz ROY Finish

[BaltimoreTerp]

Right, I put him ahead because of the insane 2nd place vote but yes 3 points is 3 points.

Why is Jaso earning a second-place vote "insane"?

[BaltimoreTerp]

I can't believe that Jaso gets ONE second place vote and therefore cracks this list. Who did that I wonder?

Probably a TB writer.

[Frobby]

Why is Jaso earning a second-place vote "insane"?

It isn't. A .750 OPS is pretty good for a rookie catcher. I wouldn't have voted him 2nd, but I wouldn't call it "insane." (Admittedly, Wieters had a .753 OPS last year and had no votes at all.)

Obviously, I still expect Matusz to outshine most if not all of the others who got AL ROY votes in 2010. However, I never had any doubt that he'd finish no higher than 4th, so finishing tied for 5th is in the ballpark of what I expected.

[Old#5fan]

I don't get even a mild uproar or complaining about this. If you don't win the award what the heck does it matter if you finish third, fourth, fifth, etc.? :confused:That to me is utterly meaningless. Even second means little unless it was a very close vote.

It sort of bugs me when I see this almost whining type response to when one of our players doesn't get an award which usually they don't actually deserve anyway. Much less whining about whether the Oriole players were fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh in the voting. :rolleyestf:

Fact: Matusz wasn't good enough to be in strong consideration for ROY - not even close. If you want to win an award like that you have to be better, period. There was way to much of a roller coaster like performance out of him this season.

[ShaneDawg85]

I don't get even a mild uproar or complaining about this. If you don't win the award what the heck does it matter if you finish third, fourth, fifth, etc. That to me is utterly meaningless. Even second means little unless it was a very close vote. It sort of bugs me when I see this almost whining response to when one of our players doesn't get an award they don't deserve anyway. Much less whining about whether the were fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh in the voting. Fact: Matusz wasn't good enough to be in strong consideration for ROY - not even close. If you want to win an award like that you have to be better, period.

Who on here, besides the 4 people on here who voted he would win the award, thought Matusz should have won? The answer to your question is no one. Nobody is arguing that Matusz should have won.

If you've nothing substantial to add to the conversation, which you never did back to when the thread first started and in fact led to your banishment, then get lost.

[MrOrange82]

I don't get even a mild uproar or complaining about this. If you don't win the award what the heck does it matter if you finish third, fourth, fifth, etc.? :confused:That to me is utterly meaningless. Even second means little unless it was a very close vote.

It sort of bugs me when I see this almost whining type response to when one of our players doesn't get an award which usually they don't deserve anyway. Much less whining about whether the Oriole players were fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh in the voting. :rolleyestf:

Fact: Matusz wasn't good enough to be in strong consideration for ROY - not even close. If you want to win an award like that you have to be better, period.

I'm doubting whether you understand all the factors that go into "better" appraisals. Matusz was an outstanding rookie and deserved to be in the conversation. However, I don't disagree with the end result because Feliz played an extremely important role for a WS team, and the pressure associated with that role, IMO, transcends statistics. It's a joke that Matusz finished so far behind Feliz, though (as well as behind several of the other players mentioned).

[ShaneDawg85]

I'm doubting whether you understand all the factors that go into "better" appraisals. Matusz was an outstanding rookie and deserved to be in the conversation. However, I don't disagree with the end result because Feliz played an extremely important role for a WS team, and the pressure associated with that role, IMO, transcends statistics. It's a joke that Matusz finished so far behind Feliz, though (as well as behind several of the other players mentioned).

The bigger joke is who he finished behind. As I said, he was compatible to Davis across the board with the exception of W-L record, and the record of his team. So how Davis finished 4th, by himself, but Matusz finishes tied for 5th makes zero sense to me.

[MrOrange82]

The bigger joke is who he finished behind. As I said, he was compatible to Davis across the board with the exception of W-L record, and the record of his team. So how Davis finished 4th, by himself, but Matusz finishes tied for 5th makes zero sense to me.

Completely agree.

[Frobby]

I'm doubting whether you understand all the factors that go into "better" appraisals. Matusz was an outstanding rookie and deserved to be in the conversation. However, I don't disagree with the end result because Feliz played an extremely important role for a WS team, and the pressure associated with that role, IMO, transcends statistics. It's a joke that Matusz finished so far behind Feliz, though (as well as behind several of the other players mentioned).

The way the voting is done, it isn't surprising. Each voter only votes for 1st/2nd/3rd, with 5 points for 1st, 3 for 2nd and 1 for 3rd. If they used a different point system and allowed more votes on each ballot (say, top 5) the results might have been a little different, though Matsz still probably would have come in no better than 5th.

[Icterus galbula]

Yeah, why not.

You should know who the heck Boesch is as he is going to be the AL Rookie of the Year. And yes, I wasn't talking about his age but his being a youngster as in a ROOKIE.

None of them [Matusz, Britton, Wieters, Jones and Markakis] have exactly set the world on fire have they? In fact, there are a lot better players out there than any of those five you name, or for that matter any Baltimore Oriole. For example Detroit's right fielder (Bosche) is better than any of them and is a youngster!

[ShaneDawg85]

Yeah, why not.

Yeah, that Boesch sure is a bum. Heck, he couldn't do any better than tie Brian Matusz in the ROY voting!!!

[JDubs]

If anyone is interested, here are the ages of the players, sorted in two ways:

By AL ROY voting results: (Name/Team/Age/DOB)

1. Neftali Feliz, Texas Rangers (22) 5/2/1988

2. Austin Jackson, Detroit Tigers (23) 2/1/1987

3. Danny Valencia, Minnesota Twins (26) 9/19/1984

4. Wade Davis, Tampa Bay Rays (25) 9/7/1985

5. John Jaso, Tampa Bay Rays (27) 9/19/1983

6. Brennan Boesch, Detroit Tigers (25) 4/12/1985

7. Brian Matusz, Baltimore Orioles (23) 2/11/1987

By Age (Name/Team/Votes/DOB)

1. Neftali Feliz, Texas Rangers (122) 5/2/1988

2. Brian Matusz, Baltimore Orioles (3) 2/11/1987

3. Austin Jackson, Detroit Tigers (98) 2/1/1987

4. Wade Davis, Tampa Bay Rays (11) 9/7/1985

5. Brennan Boesch, Detroit Tigers (3) 4/12/1985

6. Danny Valencia, Minnesota Twins (12) 9/19/1984

7. John Jaso, Tampa Bay Rays (3) 9/19/1983

(Source: The factually infallible Wikipedia.org)

Couple of interesting notes (some only to me):

• Matusz is the second youngest. Combine that with the fact that he had a really rough patch in the middle of the year and I'm very pleased with his season, if not his voting finish.
  
• Jaso and Valencia were born 1 year apart to the day. If you are hoping to raise a fast-starting MLBer, tell the missus to give birth on 9/19. They have their ways, I'm sure of it.
  
• Brian Matusz has the same DOB as my pops--very (VERY!) narrowly making Matusz my 2nd favorite person born that day.
  
• Austin Jackson is born on MY DOB (but 5 years later--we both barely dodged Groundhogs Day). I'm pleased that he escaped the MFY so I can root for him.
  
• While John Jaso played quite well and it is true that 2010 was his 1st MLB season...he's TWENTY-SEVEN!! I not only believe he was less valuable than Matusz, but I also have a hard time thinking of him as a rookie (even though, by rule, he clearly is).
  
• Even though it feels like Feliz has been in the league for a while, he is the REAL deal. The youngest player and clear AL ROY--respect!
  

And for the record, I voted that Brian Matusz would finish 3rd. I'm not shocked to definitively find out that I am not an expert.

[TGO]

The bigger joke is who he finished behind. As I said, he was compatible to Davis across the board with the exception of W-L record, and the record of his team. So how Davis finished 4th, by himself, but Matusz finishes tied for 5th makes zero sense to me.

Agreed. I don't see how you can logically vote for Davis over Matusz with any other rationale than "his team was better." And that should not be a factor for ROY. Matusz beat Davis in every statistical category except W/L and ERA (and that category was fairly close).

I can at least understand the Valencia vote. I just disagree philosophically. I don't think you should be getting top 3 votes if you only play half a season unless you are far and away the absolute best rookie in the league (see Ryan Howard, 2005, the last guy to win a ROY with under 100 games played).

FWIW my ballot probably would have been Jackson, Matusz, Feliz. But I predicted a 3rd place finish.

[Stan P]

http://bbwaa.com/2010/11/2010-rookies/#alroy

Tied for sixth despite leading all AL Rookies in WAR.

WTG BBWAA

No wonder they used to have a Schmuck in charge.

SG: I had to take the time out to smack talk Schmuck, still your info is wrong.

I'm pretty sure Austin Jackson had a higher WAR didn't he?

[JohnD]

I'm kind of surprised Matusz got any votes, to be honest. Not that I don't think he'll be better than most all of those guys on the list. I'm just surprised based on his very up and down year.