(11-11-2013 06:33 PM)jaredhuizenga Wrote: I think the voters got it right. Puig had the hype, but the reality is Fernandez put up upper echelon numbers - minus wins.
Puig played in 104 games, essentially 2/3 or a season for an everyday player. If you project his number out to a full season they're good, but they aren't that fantastic: .319 BA (assume he maintained throughout the season), 27 HRs, 63 RBIs, 99 Rs and 16 SBs. Good numbers, but not great numbers.
(11-11-2013 06:53 PM)rjcj2017 Wrote: Yeah, I guess ... I just look at the impact factor, which apparently doesn't count.
Think about the phrase itself — "rookie of the year" — and think about this past season's baseball headlines.
Seriously, what did Fernandez do (other than being a good pitcher) to either impact the Marlins or the game itself?
I guess if Puig was in the AL he would have beat out Myers based on stats — which is apparently all they take into consideration — but like the old saying goes, if my aunt had the right equipment, she'd be my uncle.
(11-11-2013 07:09 PM)rjcj2017 Wrote: The funny thing is here, guys, everyone keeps saying Fernandez won on "stats" — OK, the ERA and the strikeouts were good, but 12-6 is not earth-shattering.
I get that he pitched for the Marlins, but that reinforces my point — they didn't win a lot of games, and neither did he.
The "impact" was minimal, at best.
He was a good pitcher on a bad team and didn't pitch in any truly meaningful game all season, so there was no pressure to perform.
Puig's stats were pretty damn good for a little more than a half season, and look at the — I'll say it again — impact on his team.
And they were both hot dogs, personality-wise, so I don't think this vote should have been any worse than co-rookies of the year.