"Rookie" of the Year: Two sportswriters left off Hideki Matsui's name off their 2003 AL Rookie of the Year ballots, thus paving the way for Angel Berroa of the Kansas City Royals' to win by a hair. [Matsui would not even had to be first place on both of their ballots, given the winner was determined by four points.] Their reasoning was that someone who spent ten years in Japan, was a multiple MVP over there, and was hired by the Yankees for that very reason was in spirit not a "rookie." This caused some controversy, since technically Matsui is a rookie, given this is his first year of playing American ball.

Oh please. Yes, technically he is a rookie, but also, technically, sportswriters need not vote for the player with the best stats. Like a juror, they can vote their "conscience" so to speak, and cannot be penalized for voting for other reasons. And, one of the two argued that he didn't know if Matsui would be his choice anyway. Sure. It is notable, though, two others left Berroa's name off, so there was some kind of parity in sense all the same. Anyway, Matsui is not a rookie. He is not just an experienced player, he was a superior one, and did so with an elite team in his league. Thus, the true rookie should have an added edge, since he played basically at the same skill level without years of experience to guide him.

A final argument is that this would mean that Jackie Robinson would not have properly been a rookie of the year, given his years in the Negro Leagues. First off, the ability of a pioneer such as he to adapt to the majors is just not comparable to a Japanese player joining the majors years after other Asian players did so, and in a totally different racial climate. I leave aside comparing the skill levels of Negro and modern Japanese baseball, though given his wartime service, I believe Robinson was not in the Negro Leagues for ten years like Matsui was in his league. Finally, if his baseball experience was comparable, no, in a sense, Robinson was not a "rookie."