2011 MLB ROYs will be?

[js0000001]

Freddie Freeman NL and Eric Hosmer AL?

Two first-basemen?

 

[Bob Loblaw]

NL - Vance Worley

 

[carlitoson]

My guesses:
Mark Trumbo
Craig Kimbrel

 

[matfanofold]

Nova / Kimbrel

I think Freedie gets snuffed....

 

[sebpoo]

NL: Craig Kimbrel...you can't pass over a recordman.

AL: It will be close between Hosmer and Trumbo, but i think Hosmer will get it

 

[jwc9p]

And the lord said "The Phillies fans shall cometh. And they shall post much about Vance Worley and disregard any arguments from any others for they know they are smarter than you. Bro"

NL: Kimbrel
AL: Trumbo

 

[Huffamaniac]

With 15 wins and a sub 4.00 ERA, lets not forget Nova. If he can keep the ERA under 4 and gets a couple of more wins, I could see him getting some 1st place votes, and maybe win the award.

 

[matfanofold]

NL: Craig Kimbrel...you can't pass over a recordman.

Agreed.

Despite his accomplishment alone being worthy of the ROY, the record makes it a practical lock. Not sure an argument could even be logicly made for anyone else at this point. But we are guessing who will be named ROY as per the title thread, not arguing who we think should be per see. If this thread was 'who would you pick', I probablly would not pick Nova but I really believe he will get the trophy...

 

[aminors]

Kimbrel and either Hosmer or Trumbo.

 

[jeremy]

al alburquerque

 

[Longoriafan3]

Kimbrel and Hellickson... lets face it, they have both been a HUGE part in the success of both their teams. Kimbrel set a record, and Hellickson is top 10 in the league in ERA... if he had a few more wins I wouldn't be surprised if he got CY Young votes (wouldn't finish close to 1st though)

 

[braden]

How did it take until the 10th post for Hellickson's name to come up? Neither Trumbo nor Nova deserve anything close to ROY.

Had Lawrie and/or Jennings been up earlier, it would almost certainly belong to one of them. But for now it should be Hellickson followed by Hosmer.

 

[weavermania]

Kimbrel and Trumbo

 

[Dice-K Collector]

How did it take until the 10th post for Hellickson's name to come up? Neither Trumbo nor Nova deserve anything close to ROY.

Had Lawrie and/or Jennings been up earlier, it would almost certainly belong to one of them. But for now it should be Hellickson followed by Hosmer.

Novas is 15-4, how the heck does 15-4 not deserve rookie of the year ?!?
And Trumbo has 9 more HRs & 11 more RBIs than Hosmer, granted hosmer has a better average... but I still give Trumbo the edge!

Id vote Nova, then trumbo, then hellickson, then hosmer!
And yes, Im a yankee fan, but this was NOT biased!

 

[MacK]

How did it take until the 10th post for Hellickson's name to come up? Neither Trumbo nor Nova deserve anything close to ROY.

Had Lawrie and/or Jennings been up earlier, it would almost certainly belong to one of them. But for now it should be Hellickson followed by Hosmer.

Novas is 15-4, how the heck does 15-4 not deserve rookie of the year ?!?
And Trumbo has 9 more HRs & 11 more RBIs than Hosmer, granted hosmer has a better average... but I still give Trumbo the edge!

Id vote Nova, then trumbo, then hellickson, then hosmer!
And yes, Im a yankee fan, but this was NOT biased!

That's cool that he has wins, but he's plays for the god damned Yankees who might win 100.

I'd say Hellickson, Nova, Trumbo, Hosmer.

 

[Dice-K Collector]

How did it take until the 10th post for Hellickson's name to come up? Neither Trumbo nor Nova deserve anything close to ROY.

Had Lawrie and/or Jennings been up earlier, it would almost certainly belong to one of them. But for now it should be Hellickson followed by Hosmer.

Novas is 15-4, how the heck does 15-4 not deserve rookie of the year ?!?
And Trumbo has 9 more HRs & 11 more RBIs than Hosmer, granted hosmer has a better average... but I still give Trumbo the edge!

Id vote Nova, then trumbo, then hellickson, then hosmer!
And yes, Im a yankee fan, but this was NOT biased!

That's cool that he has wins, but he's plays for the god damned Yankees who might win 100.

I'd say Hellickson, Nova, Trumbo, Hosmer.

True, but wins are wins, most important pitching stat! And when you have the most wins, especially when you have a sub 4.00 era (Hellicksons sub-3.00 is VERY impressive, but hes W/L Ratio is no where NEAR novas!

 

[braden]

[quote="Dice-K Collector":gbs9km9e]

How did it take until the 10th post for Hellickson's name to come up? Neither Trumbo nor Nova deserve anything close to ROY.

Had Lawrie and/or Jennings been up earlier, it would almost certainly belong to one of them. But for now it should be Hellickson followed by Hosmer.

Novas is 15-4, how the heck does 15-4 not deserve rookie of the year ?!?
And Trumbo has 9 more HRs & 11 more RBIs than Hosmer, granted hosmer has a better average... but I still give Trumbo the edge!

Id vote Nova, then trumbo, then hellickson, then hosmer!
And yes, Im a yankee fan, but this was NOT biased!

That's cool that he has wins, but he's plays for the god damned Yankees who might win 100.

I'd say Hellickson, Nova, Trumbo, Hosmer.

True, but wins are wins, most important pitching stat! And when you have the most wins, especially when you have a sub 4.00 era (Hellicksons sub-3.00 is VERY impressive, but hes W/L Ratio is no where NEAR novas![/quote:gbs9km9e]


I don't know if you're being facetious but this is obviously dumb. Hellickson tops Nova in virtually everything important. Pitching Wins of course, are not important.

Trumbo has an OBP below .300. Power aside (which is nice, no doubt), he has been awful. I'd vote for Lawrie and Jennings before Trumbo.

 

[Dice-K Collector]

[quote="Dice-K Collector":2nx2n4wt]

How did it take until the 10th post for Hellickson's name to come up? Neither Trumbo nor Nova deserve anything close to ROY.

Had Lawrie and/or Jennings been up earlier, it would almost certainly belong to one of them. But for now it should be Hellickson followed by Hosmer.

Novas is 15-4, how the heck does 15-4 not deserve rookie of the year ?!?
And Trumbo has 9 more HRs & 11 more RBIs than Hosmer, granted hosmer has a better average... but I still give Trumbo the edge!

Id vote Nova, then trumbo, then hellickson, then hosmer!
And yes, Im a yankee fan, but this was NOT biased!

That's cool that he has wins, but he's plays for the god damned Yankees who might win 100.

I'd say Hellickson, Nova, Trumbo, Hosmer.

True, but wins are wins, most important pitching stat! And when you have the most wins, especially when you have a sub 4.00 era (Hellicksons sub-3.00 is VERY impressive, but hes W/L Ratio is no where NEAR novas!

I don't know if you're being facetious but this is obviously dumb. Hellickson tops Nova in virtually everything important. Pitching Wins of course, are not important.

Trumbo has an OBP below .300. Power aside (which is nice, no doubt), he has been awful. I'd vote for Lawrie and Jennings before Trumbo.[/quote:2nx2n4wt]

How are wins not important?!

 

[braden]

[quote="Dice-K Collector":22y81e85]

[quote="Dice-K Collector":22y81e85]

How did it take until the 10th post for Hellickson's name to come up? Neither Trumbo nor Nova deserve anything close to ROY.

Had Lawrie and/or Jennings been up earlier, it would almost certainly belong to one of them. But for now it should be Hellickson followed by Hosmer.

Novas is 15-4, how the heck does 15-4 not deserve rookie of the year ?!?
And Trumbo has 9 more HRs & 11 more RBIs than Hosmer, granted hosmer has a better average... but I still give Trumbo the edge!

Id vote Nova, then trumbo, then hellickson, then hosmer!
And yes, Im a yankee fan, but this was NOT biased!

That's cool that he has wins, but he's plays for the god damned Yankees who might win 100.

I'd say Hellickson, Nova, Trumbo, Hosmer.

True, but wins are wins, most important pitching stat! And when you have the most wins, especially when you have a sub 4.00 era (Hellicksons sub-3.00 is VERY impressive, but hes W/L Ratio is no where NEAR novas!

I don't know if you're being facetious but this is obviously dumb. Hellickson tops Nova in virtually everything important. Pitching Wins of course, are not important.

Trumbo has an OBP below .300. Power aside (which is nice, no doubt), he has been awful. I'd vote for Lawrie and Jennings before Trumbo.[/quote:22y81e85]

How are wins not important?![/quote:22y81e85]


I honestly don't know if you're joking/baiting or not. So I won't get too far into it. Wins are representative of the team and run support provided. For the purpose of one season they can literally tell you nothing about a pitcher's performance. Hellickson has been much, much better than Nova and it's really not even close.

Nova- 3.94 ERA, 1.35 WHIP, 50 BB, 87 K, 144 IP
Hellickson- 2.96 ERA, 1.14 WHIP, 59 BB, 109 K, 170 IP

A full run less per game. Allows fewer hits, strikes out more and 26 more IP. Again, it's not close.

 

[Dice-K Collector]

[quote="Dice-K Collector":3gkbtguc]

[quote="Dice-K Collector":3gkbtguc]

How did it take until the 10th post for Hellickson's name to come up? Neither Trumbo nor Nova deserve anything close to ROY.

Had Lawrie and/or Jennings been up earlier, it would almost certainly belong to one of them. But for now it should be Hellickson followed by Hosmer.

Novas is 15-4, how the heck does 15-4 not deserve rookie of the year ?!?
And Trumbo has 9 more HRs & 11 more RBIs than Hosmer, granted hosmer has a better average... but I still give Trumbo the edge!

Id vote Nova, then trumbo, then hellickson, then hosmer!
And yes, Im a yankee fan, but this was NOT biased!

That's cool that he has wins, but he's plays for the god damned Yankees who might win 100.

I'd say Hellickson, Nova, Trumbo, Hosmer.

True, but wins are wins, most important pitching stat! And when you have the most wins, especially when you have a sub 4.00 era (Hellicksons sub-3.00 is VERY impressive, but hes W/L Ratio is no where NEAR novas!

I don't know if you're being facetious but this is obviously dumb. Hellickson tops Nova in virtually everything important. Pitching Wins of course, are not important.

Trumbo has an OBP below .300. Power aside (which is nice, no doubt), he has been awful. I'd vote for Lawrie and Jennings before Trumbo.

How are wins not important?![/quote:3gkbtguc]


I honestly don't know if you're joking/baiting or not. So I won't get too far into it. Wins are representative of the team and run support provided. For the purpose of one season they can literally tell you nothing about a pitcher's performance. Hellickson has been much, much better than Nova and it's really not even close.

Nova- 3.94 ERA, 1.35 WHIP, 50 BB, 87 K, 144 IP
Hellickson- 2.96 ERA, 1.14 WHIP, 59 BB, 109 K, 170 IP

A full run less per game. Allows fewer hits, strikes out more and 26 more IP. Again, it's not close.[/quote:3gkbtguc]

I always went by the fact that wins showed that you pitched well enough for your team to win the game... Im not going to argue more, you have a reasonable reason and all, but Im not going to change my opinions