Managing Expectations

Last night, as you probably heard, Major League Baseball announced their manager of the year award. And, as you probably heard, Alex Cora finished second in the voting. This really annoyed me.

No, not because I think he should have won, even though he should have. The actual winner of these awards is becoming less important to me as time goes by. Being "in the conversation" is what's important, more than whoever happens to get more random-feeling votes. He had a great year. We all know that. We don't need a trophy to prove it. (Although, the World Series trophy certainly implies it.)

No, my problem is that he finished second, and not first or third. Either of those would have at least made sense. 

If he finished first, you would reward the manager who won the most games with the manager of the year award. That certainly makes sense. After all, the whole goal is to win the most games.

Or, if you oddly wanted to punish Cora for having expensive players you could vote for Melvin and Cash. They won many games with a very low payroll. Which is a great job by them, as long as you equate "payroll" with "talent". After all, the Rays had the Cy Young award winner this season, and A's fans tell me Matt Chapman is like a god or something. So, just because they're not paid very much doesn't mean they aren't highly skilled. Conversely, just because the Sox pay a lot for players doesn't mean they're awesome. After all, a chunk of the Sox payroll is going towards Hanley Ramirez, Dustin's Pedroia's corpse, and Pablo Sandoval. Players that Cora couldn't use much if at all because they weren't on the team for most of the season. (Frankly, Cora should win the award just for having dealt with Pedroia all season.) But, I digress. If you want to vote the award as sort of a win per dollar calculation, Cora wouldn't be your top choice.

But, then, why did he finish second? 

So, he finished behind a guy who won a lot despite his payroll, but ahead of a guy who won a lot despite his payroll. Which is it? Are we penalizing talent, or rewarding it? Did Cash get screwed because he didn't make the playoffs in a division with two 100-win teams? Were the extra seven wins in a weaker division so much better for Melvin? What the hell is a possible explanation to vote Boone over Cora?

So, I don't mind stupid reasons, as long as their somewhat valid. If you want to say an MVP has to come from a playoff team, fine. You'll be stupid, but that's fine. Just always only vote for players from playoff teams. If your Cy young has to have a lot of wins, that's fine. It's a stupid qualification, but go ahead. Just always use that criteria. If your manager of the year needs to have a low payroll, fine. You're a fool, but fine. Just always reward guys with low payrolls.

Otherwise it looks like you're just making things up.