AL MVP-poll (1 Viewer)

[scoobus]

Who would be your vote if you had one?

 

[Oh Yes!]

has to be verlander.

 

[Smack Tripper]

No Cano?

I don't get this groupthink on Verlander, but I'm going to guess its because there are a couple of viable Yankees in contention. Standard measures don't apply to them, but how you go Verlander over a Granderson or a Cano at this point is crazy to me. These are the clear offensive leaders on a team with one pitcher thats going to have the best record in the league.

 

[shadyridr]

I voted Bautista but also agree Cano is a better MVP candidate than Granderson

 

[scoobus]

Added Robinson Cano, although I don't know how anyone could vote him as their #1 choice for MVP.

 

[Raider Nation]

JV

 

[jon_mx]

No Cano? I don't get this groupthink on Verlander, but I'm going to guess its because there are a couple of viable Yankees in contention. Standard measures don't apply to them, but how you go Verlander over a Granderson or a Cano at this point is crazy to me. These are the clear offensive leaders on a team with one pitcher thats going to have the best record in the league.

Granderson hits a whopping .269. Yeah he hits a lot of runs in and is having a very good year for home runs, but I am guess he has more chances than anyone in the league too.

 

[Smack Tripper]

No Cano? I don't get this groupthink on Verlander, but I'm going to guess its because there are a couple of viable Yankees in contention. Standard measures don't apply to them, but how you go Verlander over a Granderson or a Cano at this point is crazy to me. These are the clear offensive leaders on a team with one pitcher thats going to have the best record in the league.

Granderson hits a whopping .269. Yeah he hits a lot of runs in and is having a very good year for home runs, but I am guess he has more chances than anyone in the league too.

the objective of the game is to score runs. He spent a good swath of time both scoring and driving in more than anyone else and he doesn't hit 1st, 3rd, 4th or 5th with any regularity. He's been slumping and I expect him to get rest as the playoffs get closer, so he may not compete for the RBI title, but good god, if he somehow ends up leading MLB in Runs and RBI or even the AL, it would seem crazy to deny him. I mean the guy is going to be 140-40-120 and now we're rabbit hunting for a pitcher to give the first MVP in 25 years to? I can see arguments for Batista, or hell, maybe Ellsbury and Cano. I'm not inherently opposed to the idea of a pitcher getting it, but only in a case of dominance absent a clear cut offensive candidate. I didn't like Eck getting it in 92 and I don't like it here.

 

[jon_mx]

No Cano? I don't get this groupthink on Verlander, but I'm going to guess its because there are a couple of viable Yankees in contention. Standard measures don't apply to them, but how you go Verlander over a Granderson or a Cano at this point is crazy to me. These are the clear offensive leaders on a team with one pitcher thats going to have the best record in the league.

Granderson hits a whopping .269. Yeah he hits a lot of runs in and is having a very good year for home runs, but I am guess he has more chances than anyone in the league too.

the objective of the game is to score runs. He spent a good swath of time both scoring and driving in more than anyone else and he doesn't hit 1st, 3rd, 4th or 5th with any regularity. He's been slumping and I expect him to get rest as the playoffs get closer, so he may not compete for the RBI title, but good god, if he somehow ends up leading MLB in Runs and RBI or even the AL, it would seem crazy to deny him. I mean the guy is going to be 140-40-120 and now we're rabbit hunting for a pitcher to give the first MVP in 25 years to? I can see arguments for Batista, or hell, maybe Ellsbury and Cano. I'm not inherently opposed to the idea of a pitcher getting it, but only in a case of dominance absent a clear cut offensive candidate. I didn't like Eck getting it in 92 and I don't like it here.

Rabbit Hunting? Verlander is have a remarkable season, probably the best since Pedro Martinez got ripped off getting his MVP in 1999. On terms of historic seasons, people have better seasons than Granderson every year. There hasn't been a pitcher have this good of a season in a long while. Been 30 years since an AL pitcher has won 25 games. Verlander will lead the league in ERA, innings, wins, strikeouts, to name a few. Without Verlander, the Tigers are not in the playoffs.

 

[Smack Tripper]

No Cano? I don't get this groupthink on Verlander, but I'm going to guess its because there are a couple of viable Yankees in contention. Standard measures don't apply to them, but how you go Verlander over a Granderson or a Cano at this point is crazy to me. These are the clear offensive leaders on a team with one pitcher thats going to have the best record in the league.

Granderson hits a whopping .269. Yeah he hits a lot of runs in and is having a very good year for home runs, but I am guess he has more chances than anyone in the league too.

the objective of the game is to score runs. He spent a good swath of time both scoring and driving in more than anyone else and he doesn't hit 1st, 3rd, 4th or 5th with any regularity. He's been slumping and I expect him to get rest as the playoffs get closer, so he may not compete for the RBI title, but good god, if he somehow ends up leading MLB in Runs and RBI or even the AL, it would seem crazy to deny him. I mean the guy is going to be 140-40-120 and now we're rabbit hunting for a pitcher to give the first MVP in 25 years to? I can see arguments for Batista, or hell, maybe Ellsbury and Cano. I'm not inherently opposed to the idea of a pitcher getting it, but only in a case of dominance absent a clear cut offensive candidate. I didn't like Eck getting it in 92 and I don't like it here.

Rabbit Hunting? Verlander is have a remarkable season, probably the best since Pedro Martinez got ripped off getting his MVP in 1999. On terms of historic seasons, people have better seasons than Granderson every year. There hasn't been a pitcher have this good of a season in a long while. Been 30 years since an AL pitcher has won 25 games. Verlander will lead the league in ERA, innings, wins, strikeouts, to name a few. Without Verlander, the Tigers are not in the playoffs.

The entire division is under .500, a collective 55 games under .500. They are the most talented team without Verlander, so its not like we're talking about the Colts without Manning here. The entire division stinks and he pitches most of his games against it.

 

[the moops]

Verlander is have a remarkable season, probably the best since Pedro Martinez got ripped off getting his MVP in 1999.

Two years ago, Zack Greinke had as good of a year, if not better, as Verlander this year. He finished 17th in MVP voting.

 

[jon_mx]

The entire division is under .500, a collective 55 games under .500. They are the most talented team without Verlander, so its not like we're talking about the Colts without Manning here. The entire division stinks and he pitches most of his games against it.

Yeah, right now they are after some key pickups including Fister who is pitching like an ace. Detroit got zero production out of 4th and 5th pitchers all year. They would have been sub-.500 at all-star break without Verlander without a doubt. They lineup sucked, hitting a .180 and .220 guy second and third. They only look good now because they are about 20 games over .500 the last month or so. But not too many people thought the Tigers would win this division the first 2/3rds of the year. Verlander kept them in it, and now they are playing like the best team in the AL and running away with it.

 

[Smack Tripper]

The entire division is under .500, a collective 55 games under .500. They are the most talented team without Verlander, so its not like we're talking about the Colts without Manning here. The entire division stinks and he pitches most of his games against it.

Yeah, right now they are after some key pickups including Fister who is pitching like an ace. Detroit got zero production out of 4th and 5th pitchers all year. They would have been sub-.500 at all-star break without Verlander without a doubt. They lineup sucked, hitting a .180 and .220 guy second and third. They only look good now because they are about 20 games over .500 the last month or so. But not too many people thought the Tigers would win this division the first 2/3rds of the year. Verlander kept them in it, and now they are playing like the best team in the AL and running away with it.

But the MVP is the full season. If I can pull the rip chord, I'll pull it where Grandy is leading baseball in HR, Runs and RBI in late August. Grandy has been remarkably consistent split wise through the season on a month in/month out basis. If there were no Cy Young, I'd be fine with Verlander, but being that there is an alternative award, and all of the other factors above, I don't think Verlander has so far outstripped the position competition.

 

[jon_mx]

Unlike Granderson, Verlander has performed at top level alll year. He just hadn't had to carry the team on his shoulders the last month like he did the rest of the seaon.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

A case for JV from "The Daily Campus":

"To begin, Verlander's complete dominance on the mound this year is readily apparent through analysis of the basic pitching metrics. Verlander leads the American League in not one, not two, but six statistical columns. Verlander carries an earned run average of 2.36, as well as a WHIP (walks and hits per inning pitched) of 0.92. These premier measures of pitching should be support enough to make Verlander a deserving MVP candidate, but as is with Verlander this season, good is not good enough. Continuing his legendary statline, Verlander boasts a league-leading 23 wins with only 5 losses, which is good for a winning percentage of 82.1 percent. To squash any remaining doubt voters may have, Verlander finds himself in possession of the league lead in innings pitched and strikeouts, with 236 and 238, respectively.

Furthermore, the performance of the Detroit Tigers speaks volumes to Verlander's appeal as AL MVP. The Tigers, who currently stand at 87 wins and 62 losses, lead the AL Central division by 13 games, spurred by their recent 12-game winning streak. Verlander himself has been an integral part of the streak, winning 11 straight decisions himself. Verlander's influence is also seen in the Tigers' bullpen, as Jose Valverde leads the league with 44 saves. Overall, the Tigers stand in second place overall in the entire American League, and look primed to make a serious run in the playoffs."

 

[jon_mx]

It will be an interesting result how the real MVP voting turns out. The two leading contenders have a major factor which usually means death for an MVP candidates, one is a starting pitcher, the other is on a team which is a non-factor for the playoffs. I think it ends up really close.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Unlike Granderson, Verlander has performed at top level alll year. He just hadn't had to carry the team on his shoulders the last month like he did the rest of the seaon.

I personally think its a matter of precedent at some point here too. Nine pitchers have won the MVP, none in 20 years, no starters for 25(when then Mattingly was incredulously robbed by Clemens). Not Pedro, not Johnson, not Mariano, not Maddux have won the MVP. Why? And is Verlander having such an out of this world year that now he be annointed? Pedro and Maddux blew away the league in several categories years ago, and as for the 23 wins, last years Cy Young race proved wins don't matter anymore. This team is 12.5 games up. Minnesota imploded, ah what am I saying?We all know Verlander's getting this award.

 

[Greco]

We all define "Most Valuable" differently. To me, I look at which team would suffer the most in the absence of said player. I give the nod to Miguel Cabrera.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Verlander is have a remarkable season, probably the best since Pedro Martinez got ripped off getting his MVP in 1999.

Two years ago, Zack Greinke had as good of a year, if not better, as Verlander this year. He finished 17th in MVP voting.

This is a ridiculous statement, just terrible.Grienke's season in no way was as good. Verlander already has as many ks, he's got seven more wins, his WHIP is much lower and he plays on a team that is in first place.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Unlike Granderson, Verlander has performed at top level alll year. He just hadn't had to carry the team on his shoulders the last month like he did the rest of the seaon.

I personally think its a matter of precedent at some point here too. Nine pitchers have won the MVP, none in 20 years, no starters for 25(when then Mattingly was incredulously robbed by Clemens). Not Pedro, not Johnson, not Mariano, not Maddux have won the MVP. Why? And is Verlander having such an out of this world year that now he be annointed? Pedro and Maddux blew away the league in several categories years ago, and as for the 23 wins, last years Cy Young race proved wins don't matter anymore. This team is 12.5 games up. Minnesota imploded, ah

what am I saying?

We all know Verlander's getting this award.

No. Last year was an exception, not the rule. Please don't use these kind of blanket statements unless you have a vote. And Pedro should have won it in 1999, everyone thinks so. Quite a few people just completely left him off the ballot, if he'd have landed on just one of those ballots he would have won.

 

[dparker713]

Verlander is have a remarkable season, probably the best since Pedro Martinez got ripped off getting his MVP in 1999.

Two years ago, Zack Greinke had as good of a year, if not better, as Verlander this year. He finished 17th in MVP voting.

This is a ridiculous statement, just terrible.Grienke's season in no way was as good. Verlander already has as many ks, he's got seven more wins, his WHIP is much lower and he plays on a team that is in first place.

Greinke had a better K/9, BB/9, ERA, HR/9, FIP, and xFIP. And he did all this in a better hitting environment. Greinke's results about matched his peripherals - probably because the team behind him sucked. Verlander's performance has outpaced his peripherals. Any argument using pitcher wins is an automatic fail. And what the hell does the team record have to do with an individual award?PS - Don't see how Michael Young can be a candidate, especially when he's still taking ABs away from Napoli.

 

[Thunderlips]

Unlike Granderson, Verlander has performed at top level alll year. He just hadn't had to carry the team on his shoulders the last month like he did the rest of the seaon.

I personally think its a matter of precedent at some point here too. Nine pitchers have won the MVP, none in 20 years, no starters for 25(when then Mattingly was incredulously robbed by Clemens). Not Pedro, not Johnson, not Mariano, not Maddux have won the MVP. Why? And is Verlander having such an out of this world year that now he be annointed? Pedro and Maddux blew away the league in several categories years ago, and as for the 23 wins, last years Cy Young race proved wins don't matter anymore. This team is 12.5 games up. Minnesota imploded, ah what am I saying?We all know Verlander's getting this award.

Verlander isn't exactly the head and shoulders best pitcher this year.....Kershaw's having as good a year.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Verlander is have a remarkable season, probably the best since Pedro Martinez got ripped off getting his MVP in 1999.

Two years ago, Zack Greinke had as good of a year, if not better, as Verlander this year. He finished 17th in MVP voting.

This is a ridiculous statement, just terrible.Grienke's season in no way was as good. Verlander already has as many ks, he's got seven more wins, his WHIP is much lower and he plays on a team that is in first place.

Greinke had a better K/9, BB/9, ERA, HR/9, FIP, and xFIP. And he did all this in a better hitting environment. Greinke's results about matched his peripherals - probably because the team behind him sucked. Verlander's performance has outpaced his peripherals. Any argument using pitcher wins is an automatic fail. And what the hell does the team record have to do with an individual award?

Over the past four years:Comerica avg park factor: 1.025Kaufmann Stadium: 1.001Pretty much even so that is actually a poor argument. Verlander's BB/9 stats are better (2.0 to 2.1), using ERA then saying wins are an automatic fail is an automatic fail and for MVP team success is factored in. Thanks.

 

[the moops]

Verlander is have a remarkable season, probably the best since Pedro Martinez got ripped off getting his MVP in 1999.

Two years ago, Zack Greinke had as good of a year, if not better, as Verlander this year. He finished 17th in MVP voting.

This is a ridiculous statement, just terrible.Grienke's season in no way was as good. Verlander already has as many ks, he's got seven more wins, his WHIP is much lower and he plays on a team that is in first place.

You need to take the homer blinders off for a second.I can buy an argument that Verlander is having a better year, but it is in no way a ridiculous, terrible statement to believe otherwise.

 

[dparker713]

Verlander is have a remarkable season, probably the best since Pedro Martinez got ripped off getting his MVP in 1999.

Two years ago, Zack Greinke had as good of a year, if not better, as Verlander this year. He finished 17th in MVP voting.

This is a ridiculous statement, just terrible.Grienke's season in no way was as good. Verlander already has as many ks, he's got seven more wins, his WHIP is much lower and he plays on a team that is in first place.

Greinke had a better K/9, BB/9, ERA, HR/9, FIP, and xFIP. And he did all this in a better hitting environment. Greinke's results about matched his peripherals - probably because the team behind him sucked. Verlander's performance has outpaced his peripherals. Any argument using pitcher wins is an automatic fail. And what the hell does the team record have to do with an individual award?

Over the past four years:Comerica avg park factor: 1.025Kaufmann Stadium: 1.001Pretty much even so that is actually a poor argument. Verlander's BB/9 stats are better (2.0 to 2.1), using ERA then saying wins are an automatic fail is an automatic fail and for MVP team success is factored in. Thanks.

Verlander BB/9 is 2.02. Greinke's in 2009 was 2.00. 2.00 < 2.02 HTH.While ERA has plenty of static, I used it because I was talking about out pitching peripherals. ERA measures actual results and is much more prevelant than RA, therefore the best stat to use. And why is team success factored into the MVP. Its an individual award in a sport where you can mostly quantify any player's contribution. So you can know for instance that Bautista has contributed significantly more to his team's success than Verlander, yet you penalize him because Aaron Hill sucked all year. Makes no sense whatsoever.And context isn't just park factors. Its also run environment. For instance, if someone had an identical season to Verlander's in 1999 as opposed to 2011, that season would both be significantly more valuable and impressive.

 

[Tom Servo]

Verlander is have a remarkable season, probably the best since Pedro Martinez got ripped off getting his MVP in 1999.

Two years ago, Zack Greinke had as good of a year, if not better, as Verlander this year. He finished 17th in MVP voting.

This is a ridiculous statement, just terrible.Grienke's season in no way was as good. Verlander already has as many ks, he's got seven more wins, his WHIP is much lower and he plays on a team that is in first place.

Greinke had a better K/9, BB/9, ERA, HR/9, FIP, and xFIP. And he did all this in a better hitting environment. Greinke's results about matched his peripherals - probably because the team behind him sucked. Verlander's performance has outpaced his peripherals. Any argument using pitcher wins is an automatic fail. And what the hell does the team record have to do with an individual award?

Over the past four years:Comerica avg park factor: 1.025Kaufmann Stadium: 1.001Pretty much even so that is actually a poor argument. Verlander's BB/9 stats are better (2.0 to 2.1), using ERA then saying wins are an automatic fail is an automatic fail and for MVP team success is factored in. Thanks.

Verlander BB/9 is 2.02. Greinke's in 2009 was 2.00. 2.00 < 2.02 HTH.While ERA has plenty of static, I used it because I was talking about out pitching peripherals. ERA measures actual results and is much more prevelant than RA, therefore the best stat to use. And why is team success factored into the MVP. Its an individual award in a sport where you can mostly quantify any player's contribution. So you can know for instance that Bautista has contributed significantly more to his team's success than Verlander, yet you penalize him because Aaron Hill sucked all year. Makes no sense whatsoever.And context isn't just park factors. Its also run environment. For instance, if someone had an identical season to Verlander's in 1999 as opposed to 2011, that season would both be significantly more valuable and impressive.

Pretty much with every Verlander start this year could be considered an automatic win for the Tigers/Verlander, but you almost had to be on no-hit watch with him from the first inning. The Tigers aren't anywhere near where they are right now without him. This shouldn't even be close.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Unlike Granderson, Verlander has performed at top level alll year. He just hadn't had to carry the team on his shoulders the last month like he did the rest of the seaon.

I personally think its a matter of precedent at some point here too. Nine pitchers have won the MVP, none in 20 years, no starters for 25(when then Mattingly was incredulously robbed by Clemens). Not Pedro, not Johnson, not Mariano, not Maddux have won the MVP. Why? And is Verlander having such an out of this world year that now he be annointed? Pedro and Maddux blew away the league in several categories years ago, and as for the 23 wins, last years Cy Young race proved wins don't matter anymore. This team is 12.5 games up. Minnesota imploded, ah what am I saying?We all know Verlander's getting this award.

Verlander isn't exactly the head and shoulders best pitcher this year.....Kershaw's having as good a year.

Oh I know, but its just frustrating. It seems like the group think snowball gets running down hill and you don't stop it. Its like one column was put out 3 weeks ago, and a bunch of guys pick it up and put it out as their original thought. "You know, I've been thinking, Verlander deserves the MVP..."That could be its own thread, along with statements like "Robinson Cano is going to win a batting title one day" which you hear repeated as if it was original thought from broadcasters ad nauseum. Its not like he's having an unbelievable year, his F'ing era is .08 better than Weaver who led for much of the season. I don't mean to attack Verlander, he's a runaway Cy Young, but to me he's not the MVP. You have to be a pretty damn remarkable pitcher TO be one. I'm to the point now where the only pitcher who I'd give an MVP to is one who had a season like Gibson/McClain, so a near 1.00 era or 30 wins. I'd rather see a middle reliever who went 80 dominant games get that sort of attention. In the context of modern baseball and the value which we typically put on MVP, as an everyday award, that holds as much value. BUT that is only in the absence of a representative offensive season.

 

[Tom Servo]

Oh, and at Granderson for MVP. You Yankee homers know no limits do you?

 

[Tom Servo]

Oh I know, but its just frustrating. It seems like the group think snowball gets running down hill and you don't stop it. Its like one column was put out 3 weeks ago, and a bunch of guys pick it up and put it out as their original thought. "You know, I've been thinking, Verlander deserves the MVP..."

Oh, come on. Just because everyone's not slobbering over Curtis Granderson's .270 average you're bitter about Verlander? I would make the argument that NO Yankee or Red Sox player deserves an MVP award because neither team loses ANYTHING if you took them away. When you can spend a jillion dollars every year and buy up all the talent, by default no one is that valuable to the total team effort.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Oh, and at Granderson for MVP. You Yankee homers know no limits do you?

Our boundless limits are only eclipsed by the petty jealousy you lesser light fans hold for the Yanks. Its not my fault the tribe got into the firewater and imploded against what would be a AAA team without Verlander

 

[Apple Juice]

Unlike Granderson, Verlander has performed at top level alll year. He just hadn't had to carry the team on his shoulders the last month like he did the rest of the seaon.

I personally think its a matter of precedent at some point here too. Nine pitchers have won the MVP, none in 20 years, no starters for 25(when then Mattingly was incredulously robbed by Clemens). Not Pedro, not Johnson, not Mariano, not Maddux have won the MVP. Why? And is Verlander having such an out of this world year that now he be annointed? Pedro and Maddux blew away the league in several categories years ago, and as for the 23 wins, last years Cy Young race proved wins don't matter anymore. This team is 12.5 games up. Minnesota imploded, ah what am I saying?We all know Verlander's getting this award.

Verlander isn't exactly the head and shoulders best pitcher this year.....Kershaw's having as good a year.

Oh I know, but its just frustrating. It seems like the group think snowball gets running down hill and you don't stop it. Its like one column was put out 3 weeks ago, and a bunch of guys pick it up and put it out as their original thought. "You know, I've been thinking, Verlander deserves the MVP..."That could be its own thread, along with statements like "Robinson Cano is going to win a batting title one day" which you hear repeated as if it was original thought from broadcasters ad nauseum. Its not like he's having an unbelievable year, his F'ing era is .08 better than Weaver who led for much of the season. I don't mean to attack Verlander, he's a runaway Cy Young, but to me he's not the MVP. You have to be a pretty damn remarkable pitcher TO be one. I'm to the point now where the only pitcher who I'd give an MVP to is one who had a season like Gibson/McClain, so a near 1.00 era or 30 wins. I'd rather see a middle reliever who went 80 dominant games get that sort of attention. In the context of modern baseball and the value which we typically put on MVP, as an everyday award, that holds as much value. BUT that is only in the absence of a representative offensive season.

The problem is, there isn't a clear offensive player to give it to. The NY and Boston line-ups have been pouring runs across all year, and they all help each other do it. If you took Granderson or Cano out of the New York line up or Ellsbury or Pedroia (I can't even believe he's being mentioned) out, those line-ups don't miss a beat. There isn't anything remarkable about what those guys are doing. You think Cano and Granderson are more valuable to the Yankees than Verlander is to the Tigers? Seriously?

 

[Smack Tripper]

Oh I know, but its just frustrating. It seems like the group think snowball gets running down hill and you don't stop it. Its like one column was put out 3 weeks ago, and a bunch of guys pick it up and put it out as their original thought. "You know, I've been thinking, Verlander deserves the MVP..."

Oh, come on. Just because everyone's not slobbering over Curtis Granderson's .270 average you're bitter about Verlander? I would make the argument that NO Yankee or Red Sox player deserves an MVP award because neither team loses ANYTHING if you took them away. When you can spend a jillion dollars every year and buy up all the talent, by default no one is that valuable to the total team effort.

I'm fine with whatever we want to measure success by, but sabermaticans have spent the better part of a decade going on about how batting average is important. But now, in this MVP race, it becomes an issue. I guess the notion of runs, scoring and creating them, the object of this game, is now secondary. Someone call Tony Gwynn and tell him his 5 MVPs are waiting at the front desk.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Unlike Granderson, Verlander has performed at top level alll year. He just hadn't had to carry the team on his shoulders the last month like he did the rest of the seaon.

I personally think its a matter of precedent at some point here too. Nine pitchers have won the MVP, none in 20 years, no starters for 25(when then Mattingly was incredulously robbed by Clemens). Not Pedro, not Johnson, not Mariano, not Maddux have won the MVP. Why? And is Verlander having such an out of this world year that now he be annointed? Pedro and Maddux blew away the league in several categories years ago, and as for the 23 wins, last years Cy Young race proved wins don't matter anymore. This team is 12.5 games up. Minnesota imploded, ah what am I saying?We all know Verlander's getting this award.

Verlander isn't exactly the head and shoulders best pitcher this year.....Kershaw's having as good a year.

Oh I know, but its just frustrating. It seems like the group think snowball gets running down hill and you don't stop it. Its like one column was put out 3 weeks ago, and a bunch of guys pick it up and put it out as their original thought. "You know, I've been thinking, Verlander deserves the MVP..."That could be its own thread, along with statements like "Robinson Cano is going to win a batting title one day" which you hear repeated as if it was original thought from broadcasters ad nauseum. Its not like he's having an unbelievable year, his F'ing era is .08 better than Weaver who led for much of the season. I don't mean to attack Verlander, he's a runaway Cy Young, but to me he's not the MVP. You have to be a pretty damn remarkable pitcher TO be one. I'm to the point now where the only pitcher who I'd give an MVP to is one who had a season like Gibson/McClain, so a near 1.00 era or 30 wins. I'd rather see a middle reliever who went 80 dominant games get that sort of attention. In the context of modern baseball and the value which we typically put on MVP, as an everyday award, that holds as much value. BUT that is only in the absence of a representative offensive season.

The problem is, there isn't a clear offensive player to give it to. The NY and Boston line-ups have been pouring runs across all year, and they all help each other do it. If you took Granderson or Cano out of the New York line up or Ellsbury or Pedroia (I can't even believe he's being mentioned) out, those line-ups don't miss a beat. There isn't anything remarkable about what those guys are doing. You think Cano and Granderson are more valuable to the Yankees than Verlander is to the Tigers? Seriously?

The entire division is garbage. and the Tigers have a 100 million payroll even without Verlander. I feel reasonably confident, given Minnesota's collapse, that you could have put AJ Burnett or John Lackey in Justin Verlander's rotation spot in that ballpark and they still win the division. Do they run away with it? No, but they're up 12.5 games.ETA- Cabrera is every bit as much an MVP contender as Verlander, if not moreso. Its an offensive award which granted every player is eligible for but you have to be pretty damn remarkable to win it. To me its like a defender winning the Heismann. You need a down offensive year and a dominant defensive one.

 

[Da Guru]

I always felt a pitcher should not be elgible for the MVP vote. The Cy Young is the pitchers MVP award. That being said I went with Verlander.

 

[the moops]

I always felt a pitcher should not be elgible for the MVP vote. The Cy Young is the pitchers MVP award. That being said I went with Verlander.

 

[Eephus]

Oh I know, but its just frustrating. It seems like the group think snowball gets running down hill and you don't stop it. Its like one column was put out 3 weeks ago, and a bunch of guys pick it up and put it out as their original thought. "You know, I've been thinking, Verlander deserves the MVP..."

Oh, come on. Just because everyone's not slobbering over Curtis Granderson's .270 average you're bitter about Verlander? I would make the argument that NO Yankee or Red Sox player deserves an MVP award because neither team loses ANYTHING if you took them away. When you can spend a jillion dollars every year and buy up all the talent, by default no one is that valuable to the total team effort.

It's just as silly to overemphasize the word "value" as it is to underestimate it. The Yankees lead their division by 4 games and Granderson is currently tracking at 6.7 WAR. You can't assume if he's hit by a bus on opening day that the Yankees would buy up a replacement. Do you just disqualify everybody on a team that wins a pennant by 15 games? They still would have won even if their best player didn't show up.

 

[oso diablo]

individual awards should be based on individual accomplishments, and no regard should be given for how good or how poor one's teammates are.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I wanted to thank you guys for offering up this very interesting conversation about who should come in second in the AL MVP voting behind Bautista.

 

[jon_mx]

I can see Verlander getting the most first place votes but not winning the award scenerio play out. In fact it is what I expect to happen.

 

[beaux]

I wanted to thank you guys for offering up this very interesting conversation about who should come in second in the AL MVP voting behind Bautista.

Bautista hitting .250 after the ASG isn't going to the help him.

 

[Greco]

You want to talk "value"? Alex Avilia is "value".

 

[Thunderlips]

individual awards should be based on individual accomplishments, and no regard should be given for how good or how poor one's teammates are.

I believe that's what the Cy Young and Hank Aaron awards are for.

 

[Eephus]

You want to talk "value"? Alex Avilia is "value".

Avila actually means value in Spanish.

 

[Da Guru]

I always felt a pitcher should not be elgible for the MVP vote. The Cy Young is the pitchers MVP award. That being said I went with Verlander.

Just think it should be two awards.

 

[the moops]

I always felt a pitcher should not be elgible for the MVP vote. The Cy Young is the pitchers MVP award. That being said I went with Verlander.

Just think it should be two awards.

It is two awards

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Verlander is have a remarkable season, probably the best since Pedro Martinez got ripped off getting his MVP in 1999.

Two years ago, Zack Greinke had as good of a year, if not better, as Verlander this year. He finished 17th in MVP voting.

This is a ridiculous statement, just terrible.Grienke's season in no way was as good. Verlander already has as many ks, he's got seven more wins, his WHIP is much lower and he plays on a team that is in first place.

Greinke had a better K/9, BB/9, ERA, HR/9, FIP, and xFIP. And he did all this in a better hitting environment. Greinke's results about matched his peripherals - probably because the team behind him sucked. Verlander's performance has outpaced his peripherals. Any argument using pitcher wins is an automatic fail. And what the hell does the team record have to do with an individual award?

Over the past four years:Comerica avg park factor: 1.025Kaufmann Stadium: 1.001Pretty much even so that is actually a poor argument. Verlander's BB/9 stats are better (2.0 to 2.1), using ERA then saying wins are an automatic fail is an automatic fail and for MVP team success is factored in. Thanks.

Verlander BB/9 is 2.02. Greinke's in 2009 was 2.00. 2.00 < 2.02 HTH.

While ERA has plenty of static, I used it because I was talking about out pitching peripherals. ERA measures actual results and is much more prevelant than RA, therefore the best stat to use. And why is team success factored into the MVP. Its an individual award in a sport where you can mostly quantify any player's contribution. So you can know for instance that Bautista has contributed significantly more to his team's success than Verlander, yet you penalize him because Aaron Hill sucked all year. Makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't make up the rules but I think anyone with an ounce of common sense would realize comparing Grienke's 2009 season to Verlander's this year is faulty logic. Verlander has pitched in pressure games all year, he stopped many a losing streak when the Tigers really needed it. His run from May to the end of August was remarkable with the team in the middle of a pennant race. grienke pitched not one game with pressure in 2009, not one. He could have given up ten runs or one run and it never would have made a difference. The MVP vote has always been about which player influences the league and his team the most. You have to have the numbers but ARod winning on a losing team is the exception, not the rule. And I don't believe in giving a pitcher the MVP is if there is a better candidate out there. Problem is the guy with the best numbers plays on a team that is way out of it and he has not influenced anything in a pennant race. In all sports, not just baseball, the MVP is someone who influences the outcome of the season. No one in the American League has had a greater influence than Verlander this year. Yankees without Cano or Granderson, still in the playoffs.

And context isn't just park factors. Its also run environment. For instance, if someone had an identical season to Verlander's in 1999 as opposed to 2011, that season would both be significantly more valuable and impressive.

Of course it isn't because you made a blanket statement and now have to back away from it because you are incorrect. As far as comparing seasons across decades, that's unreasonable because of the steroids era. Verlander could have very well put up the same season in 1999 roided up, we'll never know will we?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Unlike Granderson, Verlander has performed at top level alll year. He just hadn't had to carry the team on his shoulders the last month like he did the rest of the seaon.

I personally think its a matter of precedent at some point here too. Nine pitchers have won the MVP, none in 20 years, no starters for 25(when then Mattingly was incredulously robbed by Clemens). Not Pedro, not Johnson, not Mariano, not Maddux have won the MVP. Why? And is Verlander having such an out of this world year that now he be annointed? Pedro and Maddux blew away the league in several categories years ago, and as for the 23 wins, last years Cy Young race proved wins don't matter anymore. This team is 12.5 games up. Minnesota imploded, ah

what am I saying?

We all know Verlander's getting this award.

Verlander isn't exactly the head and shoulders best pitcher this year.....Kershaw's having as good a year.

Oh I know, but its just frustrating. It seems like the group think snowball gets running down hill and you don't stop it. Its like one column was put out 3 weeks ago, and a bunch of guys pick it up and put it out as their original thought. "You know, I've been thinking, Verlander deserves the MVP..."That could be its own thread, along with statements like "Robinson Cano is going to win a batting title one day" which you hear repeated as if it was original thought from broadcasters ad nauseum.

Its not like he's having an unbelievable year, his F'ing era is .08 better than Weaver who led for much of the season. I don't mean to attack Verlander, he's a runaway Cy Young, but to me he's not the MVP. You have to be a pretty damn remarkable pitcher TO be one.

I'm to the point now where the only pitcher who I'd give an MVP to is one who had a season like Gibson/McClain, so a near 1.00 era or 30 wins. I'd rather see a middle reliever who went 80 dominant games get that sort of attention. In the context of modern baseball and the value which we typically put on MVP, as an everyday award, that holds as much value.

BUT that is only in the absence of a representative offensive season.

The problem is, there isn't a clear offensive player to give it to. The NY and Boston line-ups have been pouring runs across all year, and they all help each other do it. If you took Granderson or Cano out of the New York line up or Ellsbury or Pedroia (I can't even believe he's being mentioned) out, those line-ups don't miss a beat. There isn't anything remarkable about what those guys are doing. You think Cano and Granderson are more valuable to the Yankees than Verlander is to the Tigers? Seriously?

The entire division is garbage. and the Tigers have a 100 million payroll even without Verlander. I feel reasonably confident, given Minnesota's collapse, that you could have put AJ Burnett or John Lackey in Justin Verlander's rotation spot in that ballpark and they still win the division. Do they run away with it? No, but they're up 12.5 games.ETA- Cabrera is every bit as much an MVP contender as Verlander, if not moreso. Its an offensive award which granted every player is eligible for but you have to be pretty damn remarkable to win it. To me its like a defender winning the Heismann. You need a down offensive year and a dominant defensive one.

Alex Avila and VMart are having more impact than Cabrera is this year, they will be second and third as Tigers MVPs this season.Also the Tigers are 18-14 vs the AL East this year and the bolded above has to be one of the more ridiculous statements in the history of this forum (and that's saying a lot). It's like you just noticed the Al Central, it has been a tight division all the way up to the longest winning streak in 77 years for the Tigers.

We get it, you hate 9/11 coverage and you think your 200 million dollar payroll team would easily win the Al Central. Have you been tested for genius? You're that Yankees fan we all hate.

Oh, and at Granderson for MVP. You Yankee homers know no limits do you?

Our boundless limits are only eclipsed by the petty jealousy you lesser light fans hold for the Yanks. Its not my fault the tribe got into the firewater and imploded against what would be a AAA team without Verlander

A triple A team has the AL leader in hitting w/RISP, the 4th highest OPS in the AL and Miguel Cabrera?Is this ? Come on

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Verlander is have a remarkable season, probably the best since Pedro Martinez got ripped off getting his MVP in 1999.

Two years ago, Zack Greinke had as good of a year, if not better, as Verlander this year. He finished 17th in MVP voting.

This is a ridiculous statement, just terrible.Grienke's season in no way was as good. Verlander already has as many ks, he's got seven more wins, his WHIP is much lower and he plays on a team that is in first place.

You need to take the homer blinders off for a second.I can buy an argument that Verlander is having a better year, but it is in no way a ridiculous, terrible statement to believe otherwise.

Grienke pitched in zero important games in 2009, that's why it is so different.

 

[Da Guru]

I always felt a pitcher should not be elgible for the MVP vote. The Cy Young is the pitchers MVP award. That being said I went with Verlander.

Just think it should be two awards.

It is two awards

Position players and Pitchers.

 

[the moops]

DD - I think we all understand what you are saying. And it is probably unlikely that Bautista wins, even though he has better numbers than Arod had when he won. He has a couple things going against him. 1) He isn't Arod. 2) He plays in Toronto.

But, the thing with Verlander is he has as much, if not more going against him than Bautista. In that there are some writers that dont even think pitchers should be eligible for MVP. And there are others that think they should be, but rarely seem to vote them too high on the list.

But, maybe this is the year that people give pitchers their due. If only they could retroactively give Pedro the 2 or 3 that he deserved