What a thrilling ride for Noah Cameron in his rookie year—proving that even underdogs can shine brightly on the big stage, yet sometimes slip through the cracks of recognition. But is the Rookie of the Year award truly celebrating the most deserving talents, or are we overlooking hidden gems like him? Let’s dive into the details and explore why this story might just spark some heated debates among baseball fans.
Noah Cameron entered the scene without much buzz as a top prospect, but he consistently impressed at every minor league stop along his journey. In a highly competitive group of newcomers, he emerged as one of the standout performers making their major league debuts this season.
As revealed by the Baseball Writers of America last night, Cameron secured a fourth-place finish in the Rookie of the Year voting. Despite not joining his team until April 30, he turned heads with a solid 9-7 record, a stellar 2.99 ERA—think of that as the average number of runs he allowed per nine innings, a key measure of a pitcher’s dominance—and racked up 114 strikeouts in 138.1 innings across 24 starts. This translated to an impressive 3.8 rWAR, which stands for runs above replacement—a metric that estimates how many wins a player added compared to a typical substitute. For context, imagine Cameron outpitching expectations in nearly every outing, making his team better by essentially contributing the value of almost four full wins.
The Athletics’ first baseman, Nick Kurtz, swept the honors as the unanimous winner, collecting all 30 first-place votes. As a 2024 draft pick, Kurtz dazzled with a .290/.383/.619 slash line—including a whopping 36 home runs in just 117 games. That’s right, he smashed over a third of his season’s hits out of the park, showcasing power that even seasoned vets envy.
Cameron trailed only Kurtz in rWAR among American League rookies at 3.8, though his fWAR—another valuation tool called fielding adjusted runs above replacement—was lower at 1.8, perhaps due to defensive considerations. Locally, among Kansas City writers, Dave Brown from Pitcher’s List ranked Cameron second, while Vahe Gregorian of the Kansas City Star placed him third.
Over in the National League, Atlanta’s catcher Drake Baldwin edged out Cubs pitcher Cade Horton for Rookie of the Year in a tight race. Baldwin delivered a .274/.341/.469 line with 19 home runs in 124 games, proving his worth behind the plate and at the dish. Horton, meanwhile, posted an 11-4 mark with a 2.67 ERA in 118 innings, demonstrating pinpoint control and effectiveness.
But here’s where it gets controversial—Cameron’s strong showing didn’t qualify the Royals for an extra draft pick under the Prospect Promotion Incentive Program. This initiative, designed to encourage teams to promote and retain their top young talent, rewards franchises with an additional selection in the draft if a player under its rules wins Rookie of the Year or lands in the top three for MVP or Cy Young before becoming arbitration-eligible. Cameron didn’t meet the criteria, possibly because he wasn’t considered a top 100 prospect or due to timing. In contrast, the Royals reaped the benefits last year when Bobby Witt Jr. finished second in MVP voting. Looking ahead, Carter Jensen could be in the running next season if the Royals call him up early and keep him on the roster throughout the year.
And this is the part most people miss—the program highlights a fascinating tension in baseball: Should teams gamble on unproven stars for long-term rewards, or prioritize immediate wins? Some argue it’s a smart incentive for patience, but others see it as an unfair advantage that distorts draft strategies. What do you think—does the system properly honor breakout performances, or is it rigged in favor of hyped prospects? Do you believe Cameron was robbed of a higher vote, or that Kurtz truly earned the unanimous nod? Share your opinions below; I’d love to hear if you agree, disagree, or have a wild counterpoint to throw in the mix!