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

[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

[Mark17]

The less tradition MLB chooses to throw away, the better.

[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