Debating the AL Rookie of the Year: Carlos Correa vs. Francisco Lindor

The first of Major League Baseball’s major postseason awards will be handed out Monday night (6 p.m. ET on MLB Network) and it’ll bring the first big baseball debate of the week to an end. The National League’s top rookie is pretty much a given: Kris Bryant will win. In the American League, though, you can make quite an argument for both Carlos Correa and Francisco Lindor.

We give our apologies to the third finalist, Minnesota Twins designated hitter Miguel Sano. He had an impressive year just the same, but Correa and Lindor made the biggest splashes. Quite similar splashes, actually, which is what makes this award so tough.

There’s Correa, who debuted with the Houston Astros as a 20-year-old shortstop in June. And there’s Lindor, who debuted with the Cleveland Indians as a 21-year-old shortstop a week later. They’re both Puerto Rican. They both hit well and have good gloves. Correa had more power. Lindor had a better average.

We’ve already examined the two of them (and, actually, all six ROY finalists) in great detail. But this post here isn’t about just explaining who these guys are. It’s about debating. The Stew’s Mike Oz and Chris Cwik are on opposing sides of this argument, so this, we figured, was the best way to settle it.

We start, with a 75-word statement in support of Correa:

Mike Oz: Carlos Correa hit 22 homers in 99 games for the Houston Astros. He scored 52 runs and drove in another 68. And he did most of that when he was still just 20 years old. All those numbers should scream “Rookie of the Year.” And if they don’t, consider the context: He added a 3.3-win boost (per Fangraphs) to an Astros team that made the postseason by just one game. Give the kid his due!

Chris Cwik: Carlos Correa is great, and your points are valid, but you know he wasn’t even the most productive rookie, right?

Oz: No, I don’t know how to read the Internet. Please tell me more.

Cwik: In the exact same amount of games, Francisco Lindor posted a superior 4.6 fWAR. He had a much higher batting average, and holds a slight lead in on-base percentage. Lindor scored nearly as many runs as Correa, and trailed in RBI only because he’s a top-of-the-order hitter. Oh, and he did all of that while playing exceptional defense at one of the hardest positions in the game. That makes Lindor the better choice for ROY

Oz: Was that exactly 75 words? Because mine was exactly 75 words and I have no problem suspending you for a technicality?

Cwik: Is that because you have no other arguments? Have I already won?

Oz: Haha, no. Just making sure you know how to count words. Let’s count this, though: That extra win Lindor was worth, how much did that matter to the Indians? I’m not one of those guys who thinks you have to be in the postseason to win awards, but I do think context matters. Correa was thrust into the middle of the Astros’ lineup and he produced when his team needed him. In September and October, with the Astros fighting for a playoff spot, he hit six homers and drove in 23 runs. I’ll take that over the difference in their batting average and defense.

(Getty Images)

Cwik: Wait, are you talking about the same Astros that collapsed down the stretch and lost out on the division to the Texas Rangers? Just wanted to be sure. I think you can make a similar argument for Lindor. Though no one talked about the Indians, they were on the periphery of the second AL wild-card spot for a long time (because it was garbage). Lindor put up exceptional numbers during that time. It’s not a perfect comparison, I’ll grant you that. But Lindor did everything he could to make the Indians a relevant team down the stretch. I don’t think we should blame him for having a worse team around him.

Oz: It’s not *blaming* Lindor. Both of these players are great and both would deserve to win if there were two awards. That much, we can definitely agree on. But when we look at two very close cases, we have to look at what the differences are and how much they matter. In Correa’s case, I’ll take playing in more meaningful games and helping his team win. For example: On Sept. 26, after the Astros had lost three straight games were clinging to a half-game lead for the second AL wild-card, Correa hit two homers and knocked in three runs in a 9-7 win over the Texas Rangers. That’s the type of performance that helps win awards.

Cwik: I guess, but I could do the same thing. On Sept. 18, with Cleveland three games out of the wild card, Lindor went 3-for-5 with a home run and two runs scored. So I have a tough time buying that argument. You mentioned that this is a close case and we have to look at the differences. I think the reason Lindor has a lead in WAR is because the defensive metrics believe he was an exceptional defender at short. While I admit both WAR and defensive metrics have issues, the scouts have always pumped Lindor’s glove in the minors. So, in this case, I’m willing to buy the small sample here. I think Lindor is a great defensive player. Since everything else is so close, that’s the separator for me.

Oz: I have no problem admitting that Lindor is a great defender. But it’s not like Correa is Hanley Ramirez out there. He’s quite good too. The numbers favor Lindor there and — here, I’ll even help you — contextually, I think that’s important because the Indians were a pretty bad defensive team early on. But I think the other context is more important: Correa played a big role on taking an underdog team into the postseason. Maybe you just hate winning? That would explain the way this argument has gone down.

Cwik: See, this is the problem. Even though everyone reading this knows I’m right, there’s pretty much no way Lindor wins. Correa was always the bigger story and his team went to the postseason. So, you’ll get to gloat about being right even though we all know that’s not the case.

Oz: That’s the first thing you’ve been right about. I will gloat.

More MLB coverage from Yahoo Sports: