Great Moments in Transparency: Christina Kahrl’s Rookie of the Year vote
It’s too much to ask every writer to be as thorough as Christina Kahrl is in explaining her Rookie of the Year vote, but how nice would it be if every voter actually explained the thought process behind their awards choices?
Could it be that there’s not much thought involved for a lot of writers?
With the explanations now public for the Verlander first place vote and one of the Hernandez first place votes, I think I’m just as happy at *not* being given a look behind the curtain. What passes for logic can be downright frightening.
Let’s just say this is several orders of magnitude more deserving of respect than a certain writer’s HOF vote explanation.
http://www.rickeyhendersoncollectibles.com/2009/01/response-from-mr-corky-simpson.html
I’ve always heard/read rumors that writers would pull that, [wish I could say I’m] shocked that someone would have the stones to actually admit it =\
[not trying to start a debate]the question is sort of valid, but I can almost 100% guarantee the commentor has no idea why.
I guarantee that most votes didn’t have a dissertation like that behind them. It’s a shame too. This seems like a great topic for an off-season article.
From the comments:
“I haven’t read much of Christina, but just might start. I assume she is a female, but one that knows a lot about baseball…”
Bwah!??!?!