Furman Bisher's age when these diseased "closers" become eligible for election:

Troy Percival: 96
Trevor Hoffman: 97
Billy Wagner: 97
Jonathan Papelbon: 105+
Casey Kimbrel: 113+
Mariano Rivera: ?

Pitching just an inning at a time? Obviously Kimbrel isn't playing real baseball.

Does he actually go by "Casey"? Isn't his name Craig?

Aside from being a grumpy old man and getting Kimbrel's first name wrong, where is the grumpy old man wrong on the merits? I'm glad my favorite team has Kimbrel (and Venters and O'Flaherty.) But closers are the most overrated players in the game, bar none, and there's a perfectly good argument that 1) Freeman played an every day position and should have been considered more valuable than a 1-inning per game pitcher and 2) 1-inning pitchers don't belong in the HOF.

Bisher just assumes that no other reliever will ever measure up to the first closer he covered, Doc Crandall.

I'm agreeing with Sam... Freeman should have won, Collmenter should have placed second, and Kimbrel should have gotten two votes from local scribes.

Pitching just an inning at a time? Obviously Kimbrel isn't playing real baseball.

Great Martha's Garters! How could they give ANY award to someone from the AL?!?!? None of those bastards play real baseball!

Furthermore, is ROY supposed to be "most-valuable rookie" or "best rookie"?

is ROY supposed to be "most-valuable rookie" or "best rookie"?

Not sure what you're asking. It's quite clear that RoY is awarded based on "best-performing rookie" which is close to "most valuable" but the whole "has to be from a contending team" thing doesn't play much of a role. "Potential" plays virtually no role at all.

If you're going for an argument that Kimbrel performed at a higher level while being less valuable, I suppose there's a reasonable argument there but I don't think it's one that's been employed often in RoY voting.

But, yeah, I see nothing to disagree with in that excerpt.

Fred Bisher is right for once. Closers are overrated. Frankie Freeman was the more valuable rookie.

8) Walt - yes, that was my point. Kimbrel was freaking amazing. While his usage certainly speaks to value, I think it can be said that he was the top performer.

8) Walt - yes, that was my point. Kimbrel was freaking amazing. While his usage certainly speaks to value, I think it can be said that he was the top performer.

he was something like 7 runs better than Collmenter over 70-80 innings, then Collmenter also pitched another 70 innings as a league average pitcher. Not comparable, Collmenter was better.

But Kimbrel had a leverage index of 1.9 compared to Collmenter's 0.9. I considered Collmenter for my vote on the ESPN panel, but I went with Kimbrel in the end.

10,
Agreed. I am quite ok with prioritizing "top performer" over "most value" in the Rookie of the Year voting. I don't think the Rookie of the Year voting has to follow the MVP award's focus on production and value.

That being said, I don't disagree with Bisher at all here. He is completely right. Freeman's role was certainly more valuable and it is probably more difficult for a rookie to adjust to playing 9 innings every day over a 162 game season than it is for a reliever to throw an inning every few days, though of course Fredi tried his damnedest to have Kimbrel throw every darn day. And Freeman was pretty darn good this year.

There is nothing wrong with either approach, but I think we should be giving Bisher credit for being completely right about the "closer as a baseball disease" thing. So many "old school" sportswriters get blasted on here, sometimes rightfully so, for worrying too much about "proven closers" but Bisher is so damn old school that he still treasures baseball without 'em. I love it.