Koivuniemi won the PBA Tournament of Champions, was the only player to make it into the televised finals of all four "majors," earned the third highest amount in prize money for a season in PBA history at $330,040, and led the PBA Tour in average at 222.50. Norton, who won the Pepsi Chameleon Championship his first time on national TV, was the only rookie to win any national title this year. And Jurek, who also won the Steve Nagy award in 2006, was, according to the PBA press release, "an overwhelming choice" to win the award again this year.
I can't say that I disagree with any of these choices. The only question I have is about the Rookie of the Year voting. Scott Norton received 445 votes, while "no other player received more than 15." My question is, Wasn't Dan MacLelland also a rookie this season, and didn't he qualify for four telecasts and outpoint Norton by a wide margin in the major statistical categories? If so, why did he lose to Norton by such an overwhelming margin? It seems to me that either he wasn't officially a Tour rookie, or a grave injustice was served in his receiving so few votes relative to Norton.
You can read the PBA press release on the award selections here.
The world of high performance bowling balls can be confusing. After all, the slightest variations between balls or how they are drilled can greatly affect the final score of a game. In other words, when shopping for high performance bowling balls, you require to be sure that you get the right.
ReplyDeletetq
http://super-bowling.blogspot.com/
That's all well and good. But in the future, would you do me a favor and please make your comments directly relevant to the blogpost you're commenting on? Thanks. --Steve
ReplyDeleteI'm intrigued by the voting, too, Steve. As you know, I thought MacLelland would get the Rookie of the Year honors and Norton didn't even cross my mind until you pointed him out in a comment on my blog. I have no problem with Norton winning the award. He was the only rookie to win a title and deserves consideration, for sure. But if no other player received more than 15 votes, then I don't think MacLelland got the respect he deserved. Or, as you suggest, maybe the PBA knows something I don't and MacLelland wasn't considered a rookie.
ReplyDeleteBut, if MacLelland is a rookie and was eligible as I suspect, then I theorize only 15 voters (I'm assuming and hoping it was he who got those 15) actually followed the PBA Tour all season. The rest waited until the end, looked at a list of the tournament winners and picked out the one guy who won.
Again, I don't have a problem with Norton winning, and I congratulate him for it. He deserves it. I just can't fathom how the margin of victory was so huge.
Jef, I've tried to find out whether MacLelland was or was not a rookie last season, but I still don't know. It's awfully hard for me to believe that he was if he garnered 15 or fewer votes for Rookie of the Year. But maybe you're right that the voters just looked down the win column, saw Norton's title, and that settled that. Not the way I would vote, even though I might well have given my vote to Norton anyway. As far as I'm concerned, both had excellent seasons, and I expect to see a lot more from both of them if the PBA Tour continues for any length of time.
ReplyDeleteJef is right. Either MacLelland did not qualify as a rookie, or the voters weren't paying attention. (Or there was a conspiracy.) One win in a "mini" event doesn't compare to what MacLelland did. I'm guessing Norton deserved it because MacLelland was somehow not a rookie.
ReplyDeleteTSnide, I've learned that MacLelland was NOT a rookie this season, so now I can rest completely easy with Norton's award. :-)
ReplyDelete