Do BBWAA Members Know Who Jeremy Guthrie Is?
I’m not here to harp on Dustin Pedroia’s victory in the AL Rookie of the Year voting. In fact, we picked the diminutive one as the deserving candidate in a previous post. So while I commend the voters for not being swayed by things such as seemingly gaudy power numbers (Delmon Young) or name recognizition (Daisuke Matsuzaka), I do have to question how Jeremy Guthrie isn’t even in the top-8.
The voting went as follows: 1) Pedroia 2) D .Young 3) Brian Bannister 4) Matsuzaka 5) Reggie Willits 6) Hideki Okajima 7) Josh Fields 8) Joakim Soria
You mean to tell me we couldn’t find a spot for a pitcher who posted a 3.70 ERA with a 1.21 WHIP over 175+ innings? Do I need to mention that he had a 2.62 K/BB ratio? The only thing I can think of as to why his name was omitted was that the voters saw he only had seven wins. But that’s not really his fault when he only received twelve decisions in 32 games pitched (26 starts).
In fact, in the months of May and June, the Oriole righty went through a stretch of ten starts during which he pitched 72 2/3 innings (that’s over seven innings per start) and allowed only 14 earned runs (1.73 ERA). He got two wins to show for it. Sucks for him.
So where do I think he belongs on this list of also-rans? #2. Right behind Dustin Pedroia. Compared to Brian Bannister, Guthrie pitched more innings, had a lower ERA, same WHIP, with a far superior strikeout rate and K/BB ratio. The only area where Guthrie trailed? Wins. So naturally, Bannister is the #3 rookie and Guthrie’s name in nowhere to be found.
And so it goes for year-end awards.
November 12th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Paul, two things: 1. According to these guys, Guthrie just had a great first half, not a great season, and even that was probably a fluke (thanks to the help of Nick’s favorite pitching coach), and 2. I was sure that Guthrie wasn’t even rookie eligible after spending parts of three seasons with the Indians, but I did the math and he didn’t break the innings barrier of 50 (he topped out at 37) and then did some Googling for info on his roster eligibility status…and according to Baseball America, who checked with the Orioles, Guthrie did not spend more than 45 days on the roster with Cleveland (not including post-Sept 1. roster expansion days, which don’t count against eligibility—Ellsbury is safe!). So, technically, he was eligible, but in actuality, spending parts of three seasons bouncing up and down between the minors and the bigs, plus an uninspiring second half, is probably what cost him the votes.
[Report comment]
November 12th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
But the award isn’t for “the best rookie in the second half”. It’s Rookie of the Year. Why should the 2nd half count more than the 1st? And reeally, if you look at the numbers, he didn’t really have a terrible second half - it was mostly the month of August. But despite this, he still had a 3.70 ERA. Isn’t that worth something?
And I don’t buy the whole “it’s his third season” thing. He pitched 25 innings in the two years prior. The voters know this. Or at least, I hope they do. Either way, I don’t see how pitching 25 innings in two years prior to his first full season is worse than Japanese players who spent years playing pro ball and still qualifying for the award.
[Report comment]
November 12th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
I’m just saying that his season wasn’t very eye-catching, especially there at the end, and especially given the fact that he’s sort of bounced around a bit already. When the Orioles picked him up, he was already considered used goods. For a player to overcome that and win the ROY, he would have to have a stellar season. Though I admit, it would have been nice if at least one voter had saw fit to put him *some*where on the ballot.
[Report comment]
November 13th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Good points Paul. I’m glad somebody is sticking up for my boy Guthrie (who I knew at Stanford; incidentally, he may have baseball’s hottest wife). I’m also glad to go back and see that I ranked Guthrie as the 3rd best AL Rookie back in my October 2 post.
[Report comment]
November 13th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Sarah, I think I understand what you’re saying, although I’m not sure if that’s how you personally feel (that someone like Bannister or Willits really did have a better rookie campaign than Guthrie) or if you’re trying to rationalize why the voters overlooked him.
If he qualifies for ROY voting, why shouldn’t he be voted for? Yeah, his 2nd half wasn’t exactly stellar, but the overall result is the same (or at least it should be). And the Mazzone Factor has been greatly exaggerated. The Orioles pitching during his tenure has been no better than before Rockin’ Leo came on board.
And while it may be true that his 2008 may not end up being as good as his 2007, I bet that it’ll still be better than Bannister’s. That guy has fluke written all over him. You could replay the season 100 times and he probably wouldn’t have put up those numbers again. He was never a big prospect in the Mets farm system and he will never post these numbers ever again.
And if we’re only counting second half stats (or weighing them far more heavily than the first half), Reggie Willits doesn’t even come close to belonging there.
[Report comment]
November 13th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Paul, I was more trying to explain why the voters overlooked him. In truth, writers are lazy (I speak from experience). They probably did more research into the NL rookies, where the competition was more fierce. Since Dustin Pedroia was the overwhelming winner on the AL side, most folks probably just ranked him first and then put in a couple other rookies they’d heard of in slots 2 and 3 without thinking too much about it.
[Report comment]
November 13th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Nick, as a responsible blogger, you must provide photographic proof of your claim regarding Jenny Guthrie. Your readers must be allowed to decide for themselves.
Please?
[Report comment]
November 14th, 2007 at 3:28 am
I wish I could, Rick. I wish I could!
But alas, I am not currently in posession of any photographic evidence, although if I ever get ahold of any, umpbump readers will be the first to know!
Until then, we will all just have to rely on my solemn word as a gentleman.
[Report comment]