12/18/24
November 08, 2004
Crosby and Bay win MLB Rookie of the Year awards: Crosby was one vote shy of being the unanimous choice for the AL, despite a .239 batting average. Bay won the NL award after starting the season injured and not playing until May. Any arguments for better choices?
Crosby seems like a solid pick. He was one of (if not) the best defensive shortstops in the AL and he's #6 at the position in OPS. Not bad for a rookie.
posted by yerfatma at 04:57 PM on November 08, 2004
Here's the Mercury News article billysaysthis mentioned.
posted by dusted at 05:10 PM on November 08, 2004
I'm really happy about Bay - partly because I'm a Canadian, partly because I like that this is the Pirates' first rookie win, and partly because I liked his sister when she pitched for our Olympic softball team. Not that I've seen him play...I only watch Jays' games and the playoffs. Eep.
posted by livii at 05:39 PM on November 08, 2004
No real complaints. The AL race was pretty weak this year, so Crosby's numbers were good enough to win. And Bay's numbers we so much better than Greene's that the defensive difference wouldn't be enough to make it up. (not to mention that Bay played some damn good defense in LF himself...)
posted by grum@work at 08:29 PM on November 08, 2004
Crosby had a pretty good year but he was lucky. The Twins Lou Ford had a little too much previous time in to be called a rookie--If eligable, he would have won hands down. Ford was a key figure in the Twin's run for the playoffs.
posted by daddisamm at 05:32 AM on November 09, 2004
Yeah, I agree with the thing about Lew Ford, if he would have been eligible he would have been a good choice...but then I am a Twins fan so I'm biased. The AL ROTY race was kind soft this year...
posted by chris2sy at 10:54 AM on November 09, 2004
The MErcury News predicted Crosby's win and gave pretty strong reasoning why the .239 was not the award-killer it might appear to be. At least something positive for the A's to take away from the season, there wasn't much else.