Uh, WTF? Really, fans?

So, the Hank Aaron award is voted on by the fans. It's supposed to be given to the best offensive performer in each league.


Well, this year's winners:

AL: Kevin Youkilis
NL: Aramis Ramirez

Youkilis is defensible.

Aramis Ramirez, though? WTF? He had a very good year, but was not at all near the top of the offensive performers in the NL...and NOBODY, NOBODY, NOBODY was near the real top offensive performer...Albert fricken' Pujols.

Albert Pujols, Chipper Jones, Lance Berkman, Hanley Ramirez, Ryan Ludwick, Matt Holliday, David Wright, Adrian Gonzalez, Chase Utley....the list of better offensive performers than Aramis Ramirez isn't short.

Albert Pujols, jobbed of another award...this time, by the fans.

You honestly expect awards voted for by fans to not go to players on the most popular teams?

half of them thought they were voting for Manny....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acetoolguy

half of them thought they were voting for Manny....

---

were those the ones from Florida ??

lol...no but Fla. election officals did the counting..... they needed the work I guess

OMG! Why Aramis!?? Stupid Cubs fans!!! :angry: Fans are so stupid sometimes, well actually scratch that. ALL THE TIME!

Either way, Albert has really been locking up the hardware this year...did I hear that he also got the Clemente award again? good god man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

OMG! Why Aramis!?? Stupid Cubs fans!!! :angry: Fans are so stupid sometimes, well actually scratch that. ALL THE TIME!

---

Lay off, maybe fans of other teams should have voted, can't blame fans for voting for their own players. And if you didn't know New York is bigger than Chicago, what happened to all their fans.

I wouldn't have voted for A-Ram. I probably would have voted for Wright or Pujols

I don't understand the concept behind giving the fans the vote for an award that's supposed to be given to the best offensive player. It should be quite obvious that that would leave it up to which team's fans vote more, rather than actually awarding it to the best offensive player. I'd take the numb-skulled BBWAA over a fan vote.

Quote:

---

I don't understand the concept behind giving the fans the vote for an award that's supposed to be given to the best offensive player.

---

Me either, but its the same problem with All-star voting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reade

Me either, but its the same problem with All-star voting

---

The argument could be made, though, that the All Star Game is an exhibition game FOR the fans....except Bud Selig insists on giving it meaning beyond that.

But with home field advantage pending the winner of this game its not a exhibition game any more, which is dumb in my opinion

Yeah, agreed.

Same here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I don't understand the concept behind giving the fans the vote for an award that's supposed to be given to the best offensive player. It should be quite obvious that that would leave it up to which team's fans vote more, rather than actually awarding it to the best offensive player. I'd take the numb-skulled BBWAA over a fan vote.

---

It is just to try and draw more fans, giving them the feeling they can control something. Which in the end having the fans vote has to do with money. Pleasing the fans means more money earned. But it is flawed. It is looking more and more like we at these forums should launch a coup de-tat and take over all awards voting

I see nothing wrong with the All-Star game winner (the league) getting the 4 home games in the World Series. Prior to that it was just rotated every year. I fail to see how simply rotating it is better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swampdog

I see nothing wrong with the All-Star game winner (the league) getting the 4 home games in the World Series. Prior to that it was just rotated every year. I fail to see how simply rotating it is better.

---

If the All Star game is going to have meaning, than it should actually feature the best players in the game, rather than the most popular players plus some manager picks. And they should also probably do away with the 1 player per team rule.

I think homefield advantage should go to the league with the better interleague record, personally.

That would be fine with me as well. Nonetheless, the HFA for the WS has been determined only two different ways in baseball. I dont see any difference between a year-in, year-out ratation (in the past), or the way its determined now. And remember, the HFA in baseball is comparitively small anyway, so I see it as no big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

If the All Star game is going to have meaning, than it should actually feature the best players in the game, rather than the most popular players plus some manager picks. And they should also probably do away with the 1 player per team rule.

I think homefield advantage should go to the league with the better interleague record, personally.

---

agreed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I think homefield advantage should go to the league with the better interleague record, personally.

---

Interesting or to the team in the World Series WITH the best record ?

Because using your suggestion a 82 Win team could have the 4 games v a 100 win team.Whereas,& this is simply a personnal belief,it should be the team who WON the most games during the season who should have that "slight" advantage of home field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX

Interesting or to the team in the World Series WITH the best record ?

Because using your suggestion a 82 Win team could have the 4 games v a 100 win team.Whereas,& this is simply a personnal belief,it should be the team who WON the most games during the season who should have that "slight" advantage of home field.

---

That'd work too.

Really, it doesn't matter to me, as long as it's not an exhibition game that decides it (and let's face it, that IS what the ASG is. The starters are selected by fans, the roster rules are set up to have players from every team even if a team has no deserving players, and the game is played in an exhibition-like fashion, with the manager trying to get each of the 32 players on the roster into the game at some point).

I don't care how home field is decided - mainly because HFA doesn't really matter. But if the current system creates even marginally more interest in the All-Star game for fans, or meant that the players/managers tried to win a little more - then I'm all for the All-Star game being the deciding factor. The change was intended to increase excitement in the All-Star game - if it does that then the change was a success. Making the decision on inter-league records, or the team with the most wins, while logical, have no effect on fan excitement.

I'll throw out another possibility. The team with the highest home attendance gets home-field advantage - might as well reward the fans that show up all season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenny1234

I'll throw out another possibility. The team with the highest home attendance gets home-field advantage - might as well reward the fans that show up all season.

---

So Tampa Bay would not get homefield advantage? EVER?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenny1234

I don't care how home field is decided
I'll throw out another possibility. The team with the highest home attendance gets home-field advantage - might as well reward the fans that show up all season.

---

That is tantamount giving the HS to the Yankees & the Mets,yearly :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenny1234

I don't care how home field is decided - mainly because HFA doesn't really matter. But if the current system creates even marginally more interest in the All-Star game for fans, or meant that the players/managers tried to win a little more - then I'm all for the All-Star game being the deciding factor. The change was intended to increase excitement in the All-Star game - if it does that then the change was a success.

---

The thing is...does it?

I'd guess that it creates no more excitement than the game had otherwise.

And again, if it's going to matter, than it should be played like it matters...and if it does, I'd guess that would "harm" fan excitement, as they wouldn't get to see every all-star appear in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenny1234

...
I'll throw out another possibility. The team with the highest home attendance gets home-field advantage - might as well reward the fans that show up all season.

---

NO NO NO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phightinphils

So Tampa Bay would not get homefield advantage? EVER?

---

exactly. Or how about the fact that the sox only seat 38,000 or so and sell out every game. If they played the Dodgers they would be DECIMATED easily in atendance (If LA started winning) you cant do it based on attendance... UNLESS it was based on %. For example Sox sell out 100% every game... they would get an advantage if they are in it. You can't go by league atendance because its not even.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

exactly. Or how about the fact that the sox only seat 38,000 or so and sell out every game. If they played the Dodgers they would be DECIMATED easily in atendance (If LA started winning) you cant do it based on attendance... UNLESS it was based on %. For example Sox sell out 100% every game... they would get an advantage if they are in it. You can't go by league atendance because its not even.

---

Which is why I agree with the regular season record being the determining factor. Look at Hockey and Basketball and Football.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phightinphils

Which is why I agree with the regular season record being the determining factor. Look at Hockey and Basketball and Football.

---

Hockey and Basketball rotate in the finals. Football is a neutral site...

Since everyone is all whiney about it, play 6 games at the teams' stadiums and game seven at a neutral site.

Not really surprised that I got a lot of negative feedback for that suggestion. HFA doesn't really matter - it might as well reward behaviour. And in the past, many teams other than the NY teams have led the league in attendance. And no, NY wouldn't get HFA because they would have to make the playoffs.

I don't care one way or another - it is no more arbitrary than using the All-Star game and rewards behaviour that MLB wants to see - more fans.

By the way, home-ice advantage in hockey goes to the team with the better record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenny1234

By the way, home-ice advantage in hockey goes to the team with the better record.

---

In the Stanley Cup finals?

EDIT: Looked it up, yes it is, the rules were changed after the 04-05 lockout and it is determined by points.

Hockey's point system is a better way to determine better record as there are fewer ties, however.

Basketball rotates. Football is neutral. Baseball is the only one to determine HFA off something lame like the ASG.

I am in the Interleague record camp.

I'm totally in favor of it being determined by either the teams' record OR the teams' interleague record...anything but the ridiculous situation we're presented with now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arctic Blast

I'm totally in favor of it being determined by either the teams' record OR the teams' interleague record...anything but the ridiculous situation we're presented with now.

---

Yep, that's how I feel. I don't really care how it's done as long as it's reasonable. and not decided by an exhibition game.

Wow that's retarded, I could see Youkilis deserving this award but no way Aramis Ramirez should get it. I can think of at least 5-10 guys who are more deserving than Ramirez.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989

Basketball rotates. Football is neutral. Baseball is the only one to determine HFA off something lame like the ASG

---

Home court advantage in the NBA Finals goes to the team with the better regular season record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by etothep

Home court advantage in the NBA Finals goes to the team with the better regular season record.

---

Touche. The page I looked at when I looked it up was apparently outdated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I don't understand the concept behind giving the fans the vote for an award that's supposed to be given to the best offensive player. It should be quite obvious that that would leave it up to which team's fans vote more, rather than actually awarding it to the best offensive player. I'd take the numb-skulled BBWAA over a fan vote.

---

We have one of those already, call the MVP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fish Troll

We have one of those already, call the MVP.

---

That's different from the "Best Offensive Player."



At any rate, Craig Calcaterra, author of the Shysterball blog, has an interesting take on the MLB providing it's own awards, separate from the BBWAA. It's an interesting idea, at the very least.