Mike Cuellar pitch

Jim Palmer thinks Mike Cuellar lost the 1970 Cy Young Award because of racism


I didn’t watch the Orioles game last night — so someone please tell me if this is inaccurate — but a reader passes along a bit of byplay between Gary Thorne and Hall of Famer Jim Palmer, the color man.  The subject: Mike Cuellar. The issue: why he didn’t win the 1970 Cy Young. Palmer thinks he knows:

Trivia Question: Who was the first Oriole to win the Cy Young Award?

Answer: Mike Cuellar, 1969

Jim Palmer: He should have won two years, 1969 he shared it with Denny McLain, and the next year, how about going 24-8, and you don’t even get a third place vote from one of your beat writers, because you’re not a good interview, because you’re from Cuba and you speak Spanish.

Gary Thorne: Was that the reason given?  Did the writer actually say that?

Palmer: No, but that’s what happened.

Thorne: Oh, okay. Well, I’m not doubting you.

Palmer: 24-8, and you don’t get a third place vote.  Not a second place vote, not a first place vote.  Jim Perry won that year.

Hurm.  Apparently the anti-Cuban bias disappeared for 1969 when Cuellar shared the award with Denny McLain and returned to bite Cuellar the following season.

I’m also sure his snub had nothing to do with the fact that Dave McNally and Palmer himself each also won 20+ games, thereby splitting the vote with their teammate Cuellar in a way that few award votes have ever been so effectively split. Indeed, Palmer himself would have been a better choice than Cuellar that year.

And I’m sure that it had nothing to do with the fact that, won-loss record aside, 1970 was a major step back for Cuellar compared to his 1969 — his ERA was up more than a full run, to a very-average-for-1970 3.48 — and voters often move on to a new face the next year. Especially faces that don’t have the league-leading run support the 1970 Orioles starters had.

Finally, I’m sure it had nothing to with the fact that, quite simply, Jim Perry had a better year than Cuellar did. Perry walked fewer guys, allowed fewer base runners and allowed half-a-run fewer earned runs per game.

Know who really got boned in 1970? Sam McDowell. Dude struck out over 300 guys, pitched more innings, gave up fewer hits and had a lower ERA than Cuellar or Perry. Unfortunately, America had not yet moved beyond its anti-Yinzer prejudice and McDowell — like so many Pennsylvanians before him — suffered because of society’s ignorance.

Palmer may be right that the Baltimore writer he specifically mentioned had something against Cuellar. I have no idea. But it sure as hell didn’t cost him the 1970 Cy Young Award.

David Ortiz and Kris Bryant win 2016 Hank Aaron Awards

CLEVELAND, OH - OCTOBER 26:  (L-R) Kris Bryant #17 of the Chicago Cubs, Major League Baseball Hall of Famer 2016 Hank Aaron, Commissioner of Baseball Rob Manfred and David Ortiz #34 of the Boston Red Sox pose during the Hank Aaron Award ceremony prior to Game Two of the 2016 World Series between the Chicago Cubs and the Cleveland Indians at Progressive Field on October 26, 2016 in Cleveland, Ohio.  (Photo by Jason Miller/Getty Images)
Jason Miller/Getty Images
Leave a comment

Major League Baseball announced on Wednesday that former Red Sox DH David Ortiz and Cubs third baseman Kris Bryant won the 2016 Hank Aaron Award in their respective leagues.

Ortiz, 40, flourished in his final season, batting .315/.401/.620 with 38 home runs and 127 RBI in 626 plate appearances during the regular season. His .620 slugging percentage, 1.021 OPS, and 48 doubles led the majors while his 127 RBI led the American League. Ortiz also won the Hank Aaron Award back in 2005.

Bryant, 24, is the likely winner of the National League Most Valuable Player Award as well. He hit .292/.385/.554 with 39 home runs and 102 RBI over 699 plate appearances. He also led the league by scoring 121 runs. Bryant is the first Cub to win the Hank Aaron Award since Aramis Ramirez in 2008.

Last year’s winners in the AL and NL, respectively, were Josh Donaldson and Bryce Harper.

Alex Rodriguez is taking his analyst role quite seriously

NEW YORK, NY - AUGUST 12: Alex Rodriguez #13 of the New York Yankees answers question in a press conference after the game against the Tampa Bay Rays at Yankee Stadium on August 12, 2016 in New York City. (Photo by Drew Hallowell/Getty Images)
Drew Hallowell/Getty Images

If you’ve happened to catch any of the coverage of the 2016 postseason on Fox and FS1, you’ve heard former Yankees DH Alex Rodriguez as part of an analyst panel with host Kevin Burkhardt and former major leaguers Pete Rose and Frank Thomas. Rodriguez has drawn rave reviews not just for passing a rather low bar we set for former athletes-turned-commentators, but because he’s adding real insight drawn both from his playing days and from doing research.

Indeed, Rodriguez is taking his new job as an analyst quite seriously, Newsday’s Neil Best reports. Bardia Shah-Rais, the VP of production for Fox, said of Rodriguez, “This is not a hobby for him. It’s not a parachute in. He’s invested. If we have a noon meeting, he’s there at 11:30 a.m. He’s emailing story ideas in the morning. He wants research. He’s almost all-in to the point where it’s annoying.”

Rose also praised Rodriguez, saying, “You’ve never been around a guy who prepares more than Alex does. Alex does his homework. He knows the game. He understands players. He’s into the deal . . . Frank does a great job in preparation, too. I’m the only one that don’t prepare as much as these two guys. I don’t know if that’s because I can’t write or what it is. But these guys do their homework and they ask questions and they ask the right questions and then you put that in with our experience, all the things we’ve been through and how good we get along with each other, that’s why it shows up on the TV.”

Rodriguez, who hasn’t officially retired despite not having played since the Yankees released him in mid-August, wouldn’t commit to more TV work beyond this year’s postseason.