Should MLB replace Cy Young awards with the "C. Mathewson" and "W. Johnson" awards?

[BicycleSpokes]

Hi all,

I just finished reading "Walter Johnson: Baseball's Big Train" by Henry W. Thomas (his grandson, who I understand is a Net54 member). It is a magnificent book, and I highly recommend it. Having grown up in Idaho, I especially enjoyed reading Chapter 2 "The Weiser Wonder" detailing his time in the Idaho Southern Idaho League! (As a kid I can fondly remember playing in baseball tournaments at Walter Johnson Field in Weiser, ID.)

As I was finishing the book, the idea occurred to me (probably not the first to have it): Should MLB not replace the NL and AL Cy Young Awards, respectively, with the Christy Mathewson (NL) and Walter Johnson (AL) Awards? (Could be colloquially referred to by their nicknames e.g. the "Matty" and the "Barney").

The great Cy Young has been duly honored as the namesake of the best pitcher awards since 1956. However, dating back even to the first HOF vote to the present day, it seems to be general (though obviously not universal) consensus that Mathewson and Johnson were historically the more dominant pitchers in their respective leagues.

I am sure it won't happen, but would be curious to hear other thoughts on the idea!

(Feel free to also post your favorite Mattys, Barneys, and Youngs).

[bnorth]

I really hope they don't do that. I am probably in the minority but I hated the batting titles getting Gwynn's and Carew's name added to the award.

[Piratedogcardshows]

Im all about the traditions in Baseball and would like to keep as many of them as possible. Cy Young does hold the record for most wins career so I think its not so bad having the award in his honor.

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I really hope they don't do that. I am probably in the minority but I hated the batting titles getting Gwynn's and Carew's name added to the award.

I'm right with your line of thought.

Baseball seems to be trying to make " things " current, and the significance of awards is diluted down imo.

Gwynn and Carew were fine players, but not deserving of their names to an award.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

I'm right with your line of thought.

Baseball seems to be trying to make " things " current, and the significance of awards is diluted down imo.

Gwynn and Carew were fine players, but not deserving of their names to an award.

I agree. And they should have changed the batting title to the "Ty Cobb Award", if anything.

[Rookiemonster]

They can change it but maybe with more modern players like the Koufax , ,Gibson . I don't see why we have to have such a dated reference.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

They can change it but maybe with more modern players like the Koufax , ,Gibson . I don't see why we have to have such a dated reference.

Because they (Cobb and Young) had the best numbers? (Highest avg and most wins)

Sounds like a good reason to me.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

They can change it but maybe with more modern players like the Koufax , ,Gibson . I don't see why we have to have such a dated reference.

Because without the history/tradition the whole thing devolves into a situation like modern cards. I really can't see naming the awards after whoever led in that stat last year. Or more like new cards, last month or week or maybe named after some hyped minor leaguer who's expected to be special.

There's too much stuff where many younger people don't appreciate it because they're entirely unaware of anything that came earlier. There's also a boatload of stuff that's the "new" thing even if it's been around since the 1800's (Or 1970's, or whenever it was actually invented. )


Steve B

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by Leon

I agree. And they should have changed the batting title to the "Ty Cobb Award", if anything.

+1 or even the Ted award

[BicycleSpokes]

I agree it is "not so bad" to honor Young. I simply feel a change would be especially timely now as voters no longer tend to blindly vote for the pitcher with the most wins. Also, would be cool to honor two greats with strong NL/AL associations, rather than just one!

Sent from my GT-I8190 using Tapatalk

[BicycleSpokes]

With baseball's rich history, i fully agree with you all that it is rather rediculous for MLB to attach modern player names to its awards. Cobb is obviously more worthy. Along the lines of my original post, then, how about e.g. Cobb (AL) and Hornsby (NL) awards for the batting titles?!

Sent from my GT-I8190 using Tapatalk

[Bpm0014]

No. Keep them as-is. Gwynn and Carew awards = horrible idea.

[ajquigs]

I think keeping the name Cy Young Award is a given at this point, as your question seems to recognize. A "Cy Young" pitcher is a thing unto itself. The award inflates his legacy a bit, but he obviously was truly great so no real harm done in my view.
Naming the batting titles after players is just unnecessary and dumb, I think. However, I guess it doesn't really matter since no one will ever, ever, ever refer to them that way except for the occasional references that will always be tongue in cheek ... because pretty much everyone thinks that naming the batting titles after players is patently dumb.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

I say no. The CY award has a very special meaning to the game.


HoFAutoRookies.com

[Leon]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

I say no. The CY award has a very special meaning to the game.


HoFAutoRookies.com

Plus I might have to find another favorite card.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Leon

Plus I might have to find another favorite card.

Wow! That is a beauty!!


HoFAutoRookies.com

[Louieman]

I really liked the name change with Gwynn and Carew. Don't like at all the idea of Cobb getting it, and I'm cool with the Cy Young award staying as is.

[Beatles Guy]

If I was forced to choose two names to be on the batting awards, it would have been Ted Williams and Stan Musial.

[the 'stache]

No, please don't.