Joey Votto #19 of the Cincinnati Reds participates in batting practice before the start of Game 3 of the NLDS against the Philadelphia Phillies at Great American Ball Park on October 10, 2010 in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Baseball Writers' Association of America announced that Votto won the 2010 National League Most Valuable Player award. (Photo by Andy Lyons/Getty Images)Andy Lyons/Getty Images
I've yet to have the honour of actually helping decide, but that doesn't prevent me from having an opinion on who Canada's athlete-of-the-year should be.
The recognition comes in several forms. Tuesday a gathering of sports media and industry types gathered in a board room at the Toronto Star and hashed out who should be named winner of the Lou Marsh Trophy, the paper's own award for singular athletic excellence.
That they gave it to National League most valuable player Joey Votto was correct. It's a tricky proposition because unlike the soon-to-be-announced Canadian Press awards, there is no distinction for male, female and team contingents.
The Lou Marsh allows one swing of the bat.
My bias in these kinds of things is pretty simple; a sort of sliding scale weighing the significance of the accomplishment against the competitiveness of the field; with a bit of context as a tie breaker.
It's a fail-safe system rewarding the most democratic (read difficult) accomplishments first, allowing for dominance in fields where the competition isn't quite so deep.
The only glitch is that Steve Nash would get the award - or at least finish in the top three -- every year he continued to play as an elite level point guard in the NBA.
As an example, the argument goes likes this: point guard in the NBA may be the most competitive position in sports -- there are only about 90 of them; they are paid extremely well, so there is a huge 'pull' factor; the physical barriers of entry are low (pretty much anyone over 5-10 can realistically apply) and the sport generally is accessible to people regardless of means (unlike say, elite hockey) and is played seriously in all the most populous places on earth (unlike most winter Olympic sports). That is a ridiculously steep mountain to climb and Nash has been at the or near the peak for a decade.
Until someone breaks through and stars at the elite levels of professional soccer (the most competive marketplace for athletic talent there is, in my book) or until a hockey player begins putting up Gretzky/Lemieux totals on a winning team for year after year (the dominance effect), or we raise a world class middle distance runner (depth of field argument) Nash will to me be our greatest athlete and may well end up being the greatest athlete in Canadian history.
Anyway, these considerations are important to remember in an Olympic year - especially a winter Olympic year when the temptation is to recognize people who have success in sports no one plays very much.
By definition women hockey players and male figure skaters and all those who compete in various sub-genres of skiing are going to have a tough time getting my vote because the depth of field isn't what it is in other sports.
It doesn't mean I'm against athletes from these or other categories winning these kinds of awards, just that they need to be dominant to gain consideration.
I understand, for example, the symbolic thrust provided by J on Montgomery's dramatic gold medal win in skelton; it made me feel good too. But how many people do you know that compete in skelton, or aspire too? Or could if they did? Exactly.
I was moved to tears talking with the family of Alexander Bilodeau after his gold medal, with his brother Frederic being pushed along in a wheelchair. Amazing story, but I defy the average person to actually explain how you win in moguls skiing, which last I checked, wasn't a big sport in most of the world.
This consideration can be applied against our entire Olympic team in Vancouver - not because the performances weren't stellar - but because most were acheived in sports that are pretty thinly traded, as they say on Bay Street, and without a dominant performance -- even Cindy Klassen wasn't Cindy Klassen, circa 2006 -- in my mind it's hard to recognize an individual in what was a collective triumph shared by a nation. Vancouver was great but it didn't produce Canada's athlete of the year.
Sidney Crosby? Incredible athlete who authored an incredible moment (just ask this guy) but he wasn't the best player in the Olympic tournament, or in the NHL last season. And besides; winning an Olympic gold in hockey means winning a six-team tournament. Canada should win it. The Stanley Cup is more prestigious.
Jonathan Toews? An incredible year -- Conn Smythe winner, Stanley Cup champion, Olympic gold -- but again, in my book you can't be Canada's athlete of the year if you're not even the best hockey player in the country.
Georges St-Pierre? There is limited context for what he's accomplished. The UFC is new, as is his sport, and for me it's hard to judge what he's doing especially when his opponents are picked for him.
Joanne Rochette? The back story of all back stories; and if she won gold I'd be very tempted to recognize her as athlete-of-the-year, but in the end, she was a very impressive third.
So as you work through the possibilities it becomes increasingly clear Canada's athlete of the year - or Lou Marsh Trophy winner - could only be Votto, the pride of Etobicoke baseball, for reasons that should be obvious by now:
As the National League MVP he's at the top of a global marketplace for talent in a sport with reach into many if not all of the most populous places on the planet with significant financial reward drawing the best and brightest. And while Votto is a gifted athlete, he's not the baseball equivalent of a seven-footer - someone who was always going to get a look because of their physical advantages.
Any story about Votto nods to his determination to improve and excel. If there was a required tie breaker his very real battle with depression following the death of his father in 2009 reveals an athlete both compassionate and resilient.
Any award vote of this nature is prone to error and errors in judgment. I felt Jacques Villanueve deserved recognition for winning the F1 title in 1995, the year he won the Lou Marsh over Larry Walker; that was a mistake. It seems hard to believe but trapshooter Susan Natress was Canada's athlete of the year in 1981 over Wayne Gretzky.
There were no such mistakes made this time around; there will be no future revisions required. In a banner year for Canadian sport, those giving out the Lou Marsh Trophy got this one just right.