And the AL rookie of the year is.........

Left-handed Badger · 09-12-2007, 02:14 AM

Had a good crop of them this 5 guys I like for it (though 2 were created). Here are the stats

1) Texas 1B-the actual winner (177 Hits .319-39-124 103 Runs 73 BBs 92 Ks .990 FA) He actually started out in Milwaukee and got traded in early May for 3 moderate prospects. In the NL he would have won easily, too. (NL rookies werent much)

2) Cleveland 1B (186 Hits .321-29-130 123 Runs 98 BBs 106 Ks .990 FA) seemed to have played roughly a third of games at DH.

3) Cleveland SS-one of the 2 created (192 Hits .324-32-125 104 Runs 57 BBs 69 Ks 42 doubles .967 FA)

and the 2 darkhorses (the first is the other created player, this particular dynasty I am creating me and 4 friends, these were 2 of those friends BTW)

4) KC 1B (210 Hits .370-17-112 112 Runs 99 BBs 59 Ks) He only played a handful of games in the field. He did win the batting title.

5) Bos C (180 Hits .345-14-66 .995 FA) I should also note he won the Gold Glove, had 0 PBs in 128 Games, threw out 45% of baserunners and won the World Series.

statfreak · 09-12-2007, 03:10 PM

I probably would have given it to Texas 1B as well, though it is tempting to give more weight to RBI and Runs and give it to Cleveland 1B instead. I just think Texas 1B's 39 HR are too much to overlook especially since his batting average and RBI were similar to #2 and #3.

delta · 09-12-2007, 03:28 PM

To me it looks like the winner was actually the least deserving, considering the position of the other players

Left-handed Badger · 09-13-2007, 01:36 AM

Personally I would have gone with the Cleveland SS. Just to throw my actual opinion in. Though I have no qualms with the actual winner winning. Though like I said he would have ran away easily if he would have stayed in the NL (I think the NL winner was a guy who hit .250-25-70 or some such mediocre). Though I did kind of dig kind of want to say the KC guy though. .370 and a batting title does look pretty good and his RBIs were pretty close in comparison. I threw the Boston guy in because he was such a defensive powerhouse. He wouldnt be the "on paper" ROY. But, when it comes to value to a team a catcher like that is very valuable in real life. Especially when consider how a good catcher can work with a pitching staff.

As a side note I played half the next season this morning. the Cleveland 1B got hurt for a couple months. And his SS teammate BB total took a skyrocket during his DL stint. The KC guy has "slumped" to .325. The Texas 1B as of August 1 has 43 hRs.

The Boston catcher got his first 2 PBs this season but still throwing out a lot would be thieves and still hitting decent. (.310+ but an alarmingly lack of power 2 HRs, and those 2 came in July). Oh, and those 3 mediocre prospects that Milwaukee traded the ROY to get? 2 have already been cut this year. And the 3rd is getting lit up like ultra-bright Christmas light in AA, for the 2nd year in a row.

mrbill · 09-13-2007, 01:41 AM

What's their VORPs? Texas in a MLB standard league might be an offensive park, making the 39 HR less impressive of a lead over 29.

Chief Wahoo · 09-13-2007, 01:29 PM

I would have also given it to the Cleveland SS given his position. The 7 extra homers don't really give that much more weight to the winner to me because the SS had 1 more RBI and R, not to mention a better K to BB ratio.

toxicavenger74 · 09-13-2007, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Wahoo

I would have also given it to the Cleveland SS given his position. The 7 extra homers don't really give that much more weight to the winner to me because the SS had 1 more RBI and R, not to mention a better K to BB ratio.

I wouldn't take the RBI or Runs into consideration at all for Rookie/MVP consideraton. I would look at R/C, SLG, HR, VORP, Fielding, SB.

It's a toss up, I would have probably gone with the SS also.

Chief Wahoo · 09-13-2007, 05:32 PM

[QUOTE=toxicavenger74;2309324]I wouldn't take the RBI or Runs into consideration at all for Rookie/MVP consideraton. I would look at R/C, SLG, HR, VORP, Fielding, SB.[QUOTE]

Well seeing as the R/C, SLg, Vorp, and SB were not included in his recap I used what I had. And with what I had I would put RBI and Runs ahead of HR and Fielding

battists · 09-13-2007, 10:17 PM

I believe that VORP factors heavily into these decisions.

Left-handed Badger · 09-14-2007, 05:15 AM

[quote=Chief Wahoo;2309476][quote=toxicavenger74;2309324]I wouldn't take the RBI or Runs into consideration at all for Rookie/MVP consideraton. I would look at R/C, SLG, HR, VORP, Fielding, SB.

Quote:

Well seeing as the R/C, SLg, Vorp, and SB were not included in his recap I used what I had. And with what I had I would put RBI and Runs ahead of HR and Fielding

Well, for the other categories. SBs were inconsequential none of the 5 stole more than 2. The Total bases, I think the Texas 1B had the most of them. But, not by that much (probably no more than 15 or so difference between him and the Cleveland players) R/C and VORP I have to admit I ignore. Just cant seem to comprehend the formula.

Left-handed Badger · 09-14-2007, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Wahoo

I would have also given it to the Cleveland SS given his position. The 7 extra homers don't really give that much more weight to the winner to me because the SS had 1 more RBI and R, not to mention a better K to BB ratio.

Just as long as it wasnt your Cleveland bias, Wahoo.

Chief Wahoo · 09-14-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

Just as long as it wasnt your Cleveland bias, Wahoo.

Yeah it's that Midwest bias.

christian troy · 09-14-2007, 12:22 PM

I would have given it to the SS as well.
Has there ever been a year in the history of baseball with so many incredibly productive rookies?

Left-handed Badger · 09-15-2007, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by christian troy

I would have given it to the SS as well.
Has there ever been a year in the history of baseball with so many incredibly productive rookies?

Dont know. But, keep in mind I created 2 of them. So, technically it was 3, if you will. I know there have been season that produced many players that became great players. But, great players as rookies? I doubt it.
I am pretty sure .370 would be a rookie record at least since WWII (and maybe since 1900).

09-12-2007, 02:14 AM	#1
Left-handed Badger Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: at the altar of the baseball god praying for middle infield that can catch the ball Posts: 2,036	And the AL rookie of the year is......... Had a good crop of them this 5 guys I like for it (though 2 were created). Here are the stats 1) Texas 1B-the actual winner (177 Hits .319-39-124 103 Runs 73 BBs 92 Ks .990 FA) He actually started out in Milwaukee and got traded in early May for 3 moderate prospects. In the NL he would have won easily, too. (NL rookies werent much) 2) Cleveland 1B (186 Hits .321-29-130 123 Runs 98 BBs 106 Ks .990 FA) seemed to have played roughly a third of games at DH. 3) Cleveland SS-one of the 2 created (192 Hits .324-32-125 104 Runs 57 BBs 69 Ks 42 doubles .967 FA) and the 2 darkhorses (the first is the other created player, this particular dynasty I am creating me and 4 friends, these were 2 of those friends BTW) 4) KC 1B (210 Hits .370-17-112 112 Runs 99 BBs 59 Ks) He only played a handful of games in the field. He did win the batting title. 5) Bos C (180 Hits .345-14-66 .995 FA) I should also note he won the Gold Glove, had 0 PBs in 128 Games, threw out 45% of baserunners and won the World Series. __________________ -Left-handed groundball specialist -Strikeouts are for wimps

09-13-2007, 01:36 AM	#4
Left-handed Badger Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: at the altar of the baseball god praying for middle infield that can catch the ball Posts: 2,036	Personally I would have gone with the Cleveland SS. Just to throw my actual opinion in. Though I have no qualms with the actual winner winning. Though like I said he would have ran away easily if he would have stayed in the NL (I think the NL winner was a guy who hit .250-25-70 or some such mediocre). Though I did kind of dig kind of want to say the KC guy though. .370 and a batting title does look pretty good and his RBIs were pretty close in comparison. I threw the Boston guy in because he was such a defensive powerhouse. He wouldnt be the "on paper" ROY. But, when it comes to value to a team a catcher like that is very valuable in real life. Especially when consider how a good catcher can work with a pitching staff. As a side note I played half the next season this morning. the Cleveland 1B got hurt for a couple months. And his SS teammate BB total took a skyrocket during his DL stint. The KC guy has "slumped" to .325. The Texas 1B as of August 1 has 43 hRs. The Boston catcher got his first 2 PBs this season but still throwing out a lot would be thieves and still hitting decent. (.310+ but an alarmingly lack of power 2 HRs, and those 2 came in July). Oh, and those 3 mediocre prospects that Milwaukee traded the ROY to get? 2 have already been cut this year. And the 3rd is getting lit up like ultra-bright Christmas light in AA, for the 2nd year in a row. __________________ -Left-handed groundball specialist -Strikeouts are for wimps

09-13-2007, 01:41 AM	#5
mrbill All Star Reserve Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: LA, CA Posts: 982	What's their VORPs? Texas in a MLB standard league might be an offensive park, making the 39 HR less impressive of a lead over 29. __________________ UBL - Best Online League Evar! - Los Angeles Dodgers: 25 seasons, 13 NL West titles, 4 WC, 8 NL Titles, 5-time Champs LBB v5 league (retired) - Detroit Tigers/Commish: 19 seasons, 18 straight AL Central titles, 2006, 2008, 2014, 2015 Champs! NGBL v6 league (dead) - Texas Rangers: 10 seasons, 4 AL South titles, 2 Wild Cards, one WS app

09-13-2007, 01:29 PM	#6
Chief Wahoo Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Moro, IL Posts: 346	I would have also given it to the Cleveland SS given his position. The 7 extra homers don't really give that much more weight to the winner to me because the SS had 1 more RBI and R, not to mention a better K to BB ratio. __________________ Chief Wahoo

09-13-2007, 05:32 PM	#8
Chief Wahoo Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Moro, IL Posts: 346	[QUOTE=toxicavenger74;2309324]I wouldn't take the RBI or Runs into consideration at all for Rookie/MVP consideraton. I would look at R/C, SLG, HR, VORP, Fielding, SB.[QUOTE] Well seeing as the R/C, SLg, Vorp, and SB were not included in his recap I used what I had. And with what I had I would put RBI and Runs ahead of HR and Fielding __________________ Chief Wahoo

09-12-2007, 03:10 PM	#2
statfreak Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 2,434	I probably would have given it to Texas 1B as well, though it is tempting to give more weight to RBI and Runs and give it to Cleveland 1B instead. I just think Texas 1B's 39 HR are too much to overlook especially since his batting average and RBI were similar to #2 and #3. __________________ Roll out the barrel!

09-12-2007, 03:28 PM	#3
delta Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 167	To me it looks like the winner was actually the least deserving, considering the position of the other players

09-13-2007, 10:17 PM	#9
battists Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 18,506	I believe that VORP factors heavily into these decisions.

09-14-2007, 12:22 PM	#13
christian troy Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 32	I would have given it to the SS as well. Has there ever been a year in the history of baseball with so many incredibly productive rookies?