Chuck Swirsky Might Not Vote for Jamario Moon for Rookie of the Year

Raptors play-by-play man Chuck Swirsky's recent blog entry hints that he might have to vote for Al Horford with his vote for ROY. You might remember Swirsky as the only voter who picked Toronto's Andrea Bargnani for ROY last year, thus denying the aptly named Brandon Roy a unanimous victory. Swirsky's arguments, predictably, are statistically weak but he ultimately defended his decision by saying that he watched Bargnani every day. This begs the question, "Why didn't he see Roy play more?". If you were given the opportunity (dare I say privilege) to vote for Rookie of the Year, wouldn't you make it a point to watch as many of the relevant rookies as often as possible? As the season wore down, wouldn't it be prudent to watch Roy as often as possible (considering you already got a daily look at Bargnani)?

It seems to me that Swirsky does not see his vote as a privilege but as more of an honor bestowed upon him for his involvement in the League. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate anyone who cares about the NBA as much as Swirsky but I think his obvious homer vote undermines the entire award selection process. In this case it hardly mattered but what if the race had been closer? Would Swirsky have been able to vote without his hometown bias?

In a league where we judge players historically on the honors bestowed upon them as much as their numbers, shouldn't we strive to rid this process of hometown prejudice? Shouldn't the people who decide these awards study the candidates as closely as possible? As long as people like Swirsky let their hometown allegiances skew their voting, I don't think we can take these awards as seriously as we should.