Your AL ROY Is...

[Jaypers]

.....Michael Fulmer. Well deserved. After all, it's called Rookie of the Year for a reason.

[Jaypers]

BBWAA.com: Official site of the Baseball Writers' Assn. of America.

Name, Team 1st 2nd 3rd Points
Michael Fulmer, Tigers 26 4 142
Gary Sanchez, Yankees 4 23 2 91
Tyler Naquin, Indians 2 14 20
Chris Devenski, Astros 1 4 7
Edwin Diaz, Mariners 4 4
Nomar Mazara, Rangers 4 4
Tim Anderson, White Sox 2 2

[Wrightfan85]

Very happy for the former Mets farmhand. Fulmer and Cessa for Yo is the most even trade in recent memory.

[jumbojohnny]

Well deserved.

[Hollywood42]

They got the right guy. Surprised Kepler didn't get any votes tho, especially if the last few got a handful

[Jaypers]

The last time a Tigers player won ROY was ten years ago.

Hint - his initials are J.V.

[RK8604]

And in the offseason he's a plumber! Congrats Fulmer, can't wait to see how he follows it up next year.

Detroit Tigers’ Michael Fulmer shifts from pitching to plumbing

[awz50]

Look at that, there we go. Well deserved.

[Wolves4Life]

Devenski and Anderson got 1st place votes? really?

[Jaypers]

Originally Posted by Wolves4Life

Devenski and Anderson got 1st place votes? really?

Nope. It didn't paste well - click the link.

[rscards]

Originally Posted by RK8604

And in the offseason he's a plumber! Congrats Fulmer, can't wait to see how he follows it up next year.

Detroit Tigers’ Michael Fulmer shifts from pitching to plumbing

Thanks for the interesting read

[Wolves4Life]

Originally Posted by Jaypers

Nope. It didn't paste well - click the link.

Ahh okay, Sorry.

[fulltritty]

Originally Posted by Jaypers

.....Michael Fulmer. Well deserved. After all, it's called Rookie of the Year for a reason.

Then no one should lose eligibility until they played an entire season.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by Jaypers

.....Michael Fulmer. Well deserved. After all, it's called Rookie of the Year for a reason.

Fair enough, though Sanchez sure had a good year in 2 months.

[Kevin]

Very happy to see this. He was one of the most exciting things to see on the 2016 Tigers.

[jstasyk1121]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

Fair enough, though Sanchez sure had a good year in 2 months.

these numbers are a "good year"

34 runs
60 hits
42 rbis

he had a nice HR total that would be nice over a full/close to full year as a rookie...his other stats reflect exactly what he was...a 2 month player...

[jstasyk1121]

Originally Posted by fulltritty

Then no one should lose eligibility until they played an entire season.

so Fulmer is a rookie next year too then??

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by jstasyk1121

these numbers are a "good year"

34 runs
60 hits
42 rbis

he had a nice HR total that would be nice over a full/close to full year as a rookie...his other stats reflect exactly what he was...a 2 month player...

I dunno, Hamelin won the award in '94 with only slightly better totals (64 r, 88 h, 65 rbis) and it took him nearly twice as many games.

Meanwhile, Bob Horner won it in '80 with 50 r, 86 h, and 63 rbis. Again, not that many more.

And the best example is the 1959 ROY, hall of famer Willie McCovey:
32 runs
68 hits
38 rbis
13 hrs

So, yeah, why not? Especially when what Sanchez did was historic.

[fulltritty]

Originally Posted by jstasyk1121

so Fulmer is a rookie next year too then??

My comment was in response to the OPs very obvious slam on Gary Sanchez. The award is called Rookie of the Year although no one eligible has to play for an entire season. If they have specific innings pitched and at bats qualifications that don't add up to a season's worth of normal innings pitched for a starter or at bats for a batter, then it means they don't have to have been in the majors the entire year.

[Ottomatic]

Originally Posted by jstasyk1121

these numbers are a "good year"

34 runs
60 hits
42 rbis

he had a nice HR total that would be nice over a full/close to full year as a rookie...his other stats reflect exactly what he was...a 2 month player...

Yet he was still almost as valuable as Fulmer. By your logic a player like Maikel Franco or Vmart were more valuable than Sancez just because they were around long enough to compile average stats. When in actuality Sanchez contributed to more W's.

[jstasyk1121]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

I dunno, Hamelin won the award in '94 with only slightly better totals (64 r, 88 h, 65 rbis) and it took him nearly twice as many games.

Meanwhile, Bob Horner won it in '80 with 50 r, 86 h, and 63 rbis. Again, not that many more.

And the best example is the 1959 ROY, hall of famer Willie McCovey:
32 runs
68 hits
38 rbis
13 hrs

So, yeah, why not? Especially when what Sanchez did was historic.

did any of those years have a SP that basically was 3rd in AL ERA and also had a 2 month stretch of historic stats as well?? and im sorry but 64r/65rbi is actually a massive difference from 34/42...twice as many runs and 50% more rbi's...and 50% more hits as well...so it taking him nearly twice as many games makes sense...since he was way ahead of him....

oh and sanchez...ended the season going like 2-29....his avg came down 40pts...obp 40pts...slg 80pts....ops 120pts...he was in the midst of a pretty crummy stretch but the season ended...

Fulmer had a 33 inning scoreless streak...most for rookie since F.Valenzuela and had like a 10 start stretch where he gave up 1er or 0er....

and also was only the 2nd pitcher ever to have 4 starts in row of 0er, less than 3hits and more than 6inn....ya know...historic stuff...but his happened in like may/june and not aug/sept so lets forget about that...

he put in 160inn as the 2nd best pitcher on detroit...he was massive for them this year when j.zimm went down and anibal/pelfrey were atrocious...he stepped up and was basically 1A to Verlander for most of the year....he made 26 starts...which is like 80% of a season for a pitcher...Sanchez played like 35% of a season for a hitter...


and Hamelin?? well he led all rookies that year in: runs, rbi, hr, hits, slg, ops, games, at bats, war....and the two pitchers that year that got votes....a middle reliever who pitched 50inn and had a 3.44era....and a starter that over 18 starts had a 5.44era!!

so yea that seems comparable to Sanchez this year...

[jstasyk1121]

Originally Posted by Ottomatic

Yet he was still almost as valuable as Fulmer. By your logic a player like Maikel Franco or Vmart were more valuable than Sancez just because they were around long enough to compile average stats. When in actuality Sanchez contributed to more W's.

well its not an MVP debate...its a rookie of the year....one guy had nice stats for 50games...he also contributed absolutely nothing in April, May, june, July of this season....so he was of absolutely NO value for about 65% of the season...

i dont care how many homers he hit in aug/sept....if there was no fulmer then he would have won...and i would have no issue with it...cuz naquin and the other hitters didnt really do anything that special....

but fulmer played almost the whole season and was a Very Good Pitcher overall...not just a rookie...in the AL this year not one starter finished under 3.00 for the season....Fulmer was at 3.06...he was damn good this year...and it wasnt just a 2 month thing...

the final vote wasnt all that close and it shouldnt have been...which im glad it wasnt....Fulmer was just as dominating for 2 months as Sanchez was....then fulmer was still giving innings/value to his team the other 3+ months of the season...

[jcmint]

Sanchez didn't just have nice stats. He accomplished things that were never done in the history of the game. Both were deserving

[cnewby]

Originally Posted by jcmint

Sanchez didn't just have nice stats. He accomplished things that were never done in the history of the game. Both were deserving

Exactly what I was thinking, downplaying those accomplishments as "nice stats" is laughable.

[21Pittsburgh58]

Fulmer actually played LESS than Sanchez did. 26 starts is 26 games played and never having to bat is much less impressive than Sanchez' run in 53 games while playing catcher (in my opinion).

He did have a great 33 inning scoreless streak, but it wasn't 'historic' regardless of when it happened during the year. What Sanchez did was 'historic'.

I'll always take an everyday player over a pitcher, but if you don't, that's fine. But don't try and make it seem like 159 innings pitched over a full year is impressive. He was just lucky enough to be called up sooner.

I get the fact that you are defending Fulmer as ROY because you're a Tigers homer (nothing wrong with that as I am a Pirates homer), but Fulmer wasn't as impressive in 26 starts than Sanchez was in 53 games.