Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Via he came in 3rd. Verlander got it, named on 27 of 28 ballots vs Bautista being on all 28.

Jacoby Ellsbury came in 2nd for MVP with 4 first place votes. Bautista had 5 first votes, 7 2nds, 4 each for 3/4/5th place, 1 each for 6th through 9th place. I'd love to see the ballot of the writer who put Bautista 9th.

Bautista was 4th last year, so I guess we can pencil him in for a 2nd place finish in 2012 right? :) Delgado in 2003 was the last time a Jay finished as high as 3rd in MVP voting (2nd place behind A-Rod). The last time a Jay came in 3rd was 1993 when John Olerud came in 3rd behind Molitor (a Jay) and winner Frank Thomas. Joe Carter in 1992 was also 3rd. Gruber in 1990 was 4th (!), as was George Bell in 1989. Bell won in 1987 and was also 4th in 1986. And that is it for top 4 finishes for Blue Jays.

Other notables: no other Jays made the ballot. Michael Young though was the only guy to get at least one vote for each slot (1st through 10th). Curtis Granderson and Miguel Cabrera are the others to get 1st place votes. The one vote wonders are Josh Hamilton and David Robertson. Interesting that CC Sabathia got exactly 2 votes, both for 6th place.

Most named team: Yankees 5 times, then Tigers & Rangers with 4 each. Boston & the Rays had 3 apiece while the White Sox, Cleveland, Royals and Jays had 1 player each.
By division you get 12 for the AL East, 8 for the AL Central, and the 4 Rangers for the West.
First place teams: 13 players, 2nd place: 4, 3rd place: 4, 4th place: 2, 5th place: 0 players
Bautista is ... not the AL MVP | 48 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
smcs - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 02:31 PM EST (#247028) #
There is potentially a ballot that put Young 1st, Bautista 9th, Ellsbury 10th and left Verlander off.
Paul D - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 02:34 PM EST (#247029) #
Evan P Grant of the Dallas Morning News:

1. Michael Young, Rangers
2. Justin Verlander, Detroit
3. Miguel Cabrera, Detroit
4. Curtis Granderson, New York
5. Jacoby Ellsbury, Boston
6. Adrian Gonzalez, Boston
7. Jose Bautista, Toronto
8. Robinson Cano, New York
9. James Shields, Tampa Bay
10. Adrian Beltre, Rangers

Jonny German - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 02:48 PM EST (#247030) #
Perhaps even more surprising than Grant's lame homer vote is that 22 other writers all had Young in their top 10. I say it's questionable whether Young was one of the top 5 Rangers in 2011.
Glevin - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 02:50 PM EST (#247031) #
Young was probably the fifth most valuable offensive player on his own team. How do you vote for Young over Beltre or Napoli? I think Young is likely the single most overrated player in the last decade. He's been a good player that gets talked about like he's an elite player. And I hate all this "look what he did for his team, what a team player" garbage. He's making $16 million a year and he whined at having to change positions.

I have no problem with Verlander winning it, there was no one clear-cut winner and he was as deserving as anyone even though usually I hate when pitchers win MVP.
Hodgie - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 02:52 PM EST (#247032) #
As Law stated on Twitter the Narrative wins again. The only surprising result for me was the number of voters that didn't see Bautista in the top 3.
Ron - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 02:53 PM EST (#247033) #
Congrats to Evan Grant for driving traffic to the website he works for and his own twitter account Hopefully next year a writer can vote for 1st Place.

I'm guessing a lot of voters didn't vote for Joey Bats for first place because his team was only .500 and a true MVP would elevate his team into at least playoff contention.
Forkball - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 03:00 PM EST (#247034) #
The only surprising result for me was the number of voters that didn't see Bautista in the top 3.

I'm not.  There's still a lot of voters who penalize you for not having good teammates.

If you took only the 1-5 spots of the ballots, here's how many votes each player would have (out of 28)

Player, Team   
Justin Verlander, Detroit Tigers    24
Jacoby Ellsbury, Boston Red Sox    26
Jose Bautista, Toronto Blue Jays    24
Curtis Granderson, New York Yankees    25
Miguel Cabrera, Detroit Tigers    21
Robinson Cano, New York Yankees    7
Adrian Gonzalez, Boston Red Sox    4
Michael Young, Texas Rangers    5
Dustin Pedroia, Boston Red Sox    0
Evan Longoria, Tampa Bay Rays    2
Ian Kinsler, Texas Rangers    1
Alex Avila, Detroit Tigers    0
Paul Konerko, Chicago White Sox    0
CC Sabathia, New York Yankees    0
Adrian Beltre, Texas Rangers    0
Ben Zobrist, Tampa Bay Rays    1
Victor Martinez, Detroit Tigers    0
James Shields, Tampa Bay Rays    0
Mark Teixeira, New York Yankees    0
Asdrubal Cabrera, Cleveland Indians    0
Alex Gordon, Kansas City Royals    0
Josh Hamilton, Texas Rangers    0
David Robertson, New York Yankees    0

It wouldn't have shocked me if Ellsbury won if Papelbon was able to pick up the save in game 162.
Anders - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 03:00 PM EST (#247035) #
Perhaps even more surprising than Grant's lame homer vote is that 22 other writers all had Young in their top 10. I say it's questionable whether Young was one of the top 5 Rangers in 2011.

I couldn't agree more. I find this literally unfathomable, and in a bout of serendipity tweeted it at the same time. Am I missing something here? Mick? I realize Young gets magical bonus points for leadership, but Napoli, Hamilton, Kinsler and Beltre were probably better, as was Wilson.

I'm not surprised Bautista didn't win, though it's always painful to read the completely arbitrary post-facto rationalizations of why people didn't vote for him - only 12 home runs in the second half! I am a bit surprised Verlander won. Other than the 24 wins, it wasn't an especially magical season, and the calibre of Bautista and Ellsbury's performances was very strong. If Boston hadn't lost to Tampa at the end I think that Jacoby would have won too. Oh well. There's always the next time we make the playoffs.

Mike Green - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 03:00 PM EST (#247036) #
From the cup half-full department.  At least the wisdom of crowds did result in the top-three players being the top-three in the vote, even if the order is arguably incorrect.  Law's comment about narrative is on the money.  Ellsbury probably deserved it, but having a great September in the midst of a pennant race while one's team collapses is unlikely to win a player points. 
John Northey - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 03:21 PM EST (#247037) #
Interesting thought... if the ballots were like Cy Youngs and only 5 slots, and you assume writers would've put the same 5 as their top 5, then who would've won?

Well, it turns out the top 5 would've been identical, Michael Young moves up to 6th from 8th, Cano drops to 7th from 6th, Adrian Gonzalez down to 8th from 7th, Evan Longoria up to 9th from 10th, Ian Kinsler up to 10th from 11th, and Ben Zobrist from 16th to 12th.

Using the Rookie & Manager scale (3 slots, 5-3-1 points) you get the same top 5, Young up to 6th again, while Cano & Gonzalez down a slot each.

Using the really old 'first place ballots only' method you get...
Verlander-Bautista-Ellsbury-Granderson-Cano-Young with only Bautista-Ellsbury changing slots along with Young's climb.

Not easy to get a different result this year.
greenfrog - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 03:36 PM EST (#247038) #
Bautista hit 334/468/702 in the first half. If he had kept up that pace (or had an OPS within 100 points or so of that pace in the second half), the vote would have been pretty interesting. He was clearly the first-half MVP in the AL.
Chuck - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 04:23 PM EST (#247040) #

Is Michael Young the anti-Barry Bonds?

Mike Green - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 05:02 PM EST (#247043) #
BBRef has Young's comparables as in order: Ray Durham, Marty McManus, Tony Lazzeri, Craig Biggio, Ryne Sandberg, Alan Trammell, Kirby Puckett, Lou Whitaker, Joe Torre, and Jay Bell.  It's amazing that there are so many Hall of Famers, or should-be Hall of Famers on the list.  Young does have a chance to get 3,000 hits and he was a shortstop at one point, so it wouldn't be a shocker if he got the call.  He still has had less value than someone like Johnny Damon. 

Paul D - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 05:14 PM EST (#247044) #
Bautista hit 334/468/702 in the first half. If he had kept up that pace (or had an OPS within 100 points or so of that pace in the second half), the vote would have been pretty interesting

I would hope not.  Having one of the best offensive seasons in baseball history should not be a close MVP vote.
scottt - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 05:55 PM EST (#247045) #
At least it's not Granderson. In the end, Jose finished with the Hank Aaron Award, was once the player of the week and twice the player of the month. Same as like year.

Mick Doherty - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 06:00 PM EST (#247046) #

Am I missing something here? Mick?

No, Anders, not at all, though I would question your half-serious (I think) use of "magical." Young is, there is no question in my North Texas-local mind, the most imortant Ranger, the most valuable Ranger. He is not even CLOSE to the most productive or "best" Ranger (though he is damn fine) which would include, ahead of him, Hamilton (when healthy), Napoli, Beltre and Andrus. I'm not counting pitchers here because, well, suffice to say I don't think Verlander deserved the MVP!

I've only ineracted with Grant a couple of times, so can't really speak for his selections -- or the vaarious wry sarcastic responses drawn here --  but he is, to my read, a damn fine sportswriter and has never particularly struck me as a honer. Maybe this was a he-won't-win-but-what-the-hell vote, I dunno. I'll ask Jamey Newberg in a few inutes if he wants to check in on all the Michael Young conversation (he is a Box member, recall) ....

Just remember, and this is debated every year, "most valuable" doesn't necessarily mean "best" or "most gifted." The 1988 NL MVP was Kirk Gibson, who in many ways was to that Dodgers team what Young is to the current Rangers.

Stepping off the soapbox now ...

damos - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 06:12 PM EST (#247047) #
Young as anyone's #1 choice for 2011 is absolutely preposterous.  A truly mystifying selection. 
Mick Doherty - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 06:20 PM EST (#247048) #

P.S. Michael Young, Hall of Famer?

I think so, though it's not a sure thing, He has some glitzy, kind of meaningless baubles on the resume -- the only player to be named to the All-Star team at all four infield positions, for example --  but the important counting stats are there in place or in progress 00 last year he crossed 2000 hits and 1000 runs; next year he will get to 400 doubles and possible 1000 RBI. He's not far off 200 homers or 100 SB. A .30 4 career hitter and a former Gold Glove shortstop ...

If the Ranges had clsoed the last two seasons with wins, he'd already be a lcok. As it is, he's damnclose and not even 35 yet ...

Mick Doherty - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 07:15 PM EST (#247050) #
Jamey responds ....
(via e-mail for me to post rather than directly, so here you go ...)

Here's my response ("pre-sponse?") from back in August:

The Chicago fire
By Jamey Newberg    August 20, 2011
There has been a ton of writing and sound over the last week or so tossing around the idea that Michael Young is an MVP candidate and asking whether it has legs. A surprising number of you have requested that I weigh in. So I will. Sort of.
Full story here ...


Magpie - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 07:25 PM EST (#247053) #
Michael Young, Hall of Famer?

He'll do it by accumulating counting numbers. So the real question for Young is how the voters regard the extremely similar HoF case of Johnny Damon. Damon already has 2700 hits and 1600 runs scored. Damon's only (almost) three years older than Young, who may have trouble matching those raw numbers. If Damon doesn't get in, I assume Young should have no chance.

I think the biggest scandal in the MVP vote is the decision by Jim Ingraham to leave Verlander off his ballot. If you don't believe pitchers should be eligible for the award, you should recuse yourself from casting a vote.
92-93 - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 09:07 PM EST (#247056) #
Yeah, how dare Jim Ingraham follow the fricking rules of voting for the MVP:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2. Number of games played.

Kudos to the one guy who followed the guidelines and didn't vote for a pitcher. The 2nd "rule" is why Grant likely gave Michael Young so much credit.
bball12 - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 09:11 PM EST (#247058) #
Based on that criteria - I would have to go with Bautista.

He was the team for most of the season. Without him - we are looking at a 100+ loss season.

I agree - I dont like a pitcher winning an MVP. Not enough time on the field.

Magpie - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 10:41 PM EST (#247060) #
I don't know whether I'd have placed Verlander at the top of the ballot, but I wouldn't automatically regard him as ineligible because of the position he played, which is what Ingraham did. Verlander was on the other end of 969 plate appearances, which is not an insubstantial number.
greenfrog - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 11:33 PM EST (#247063) #
It would be great if some esteemed baseball writer - Bill James, maybe - would write a definitive, concise list of the reasons (1) why a pitcher should be a candidate for the MVP award, and (2) why he should not.

Then, when this debate resurfaces every year, the debaters could simply refer to the already-codified arguments. It would be a big time-saver:

"I invoke arguments (a), (c), and (f) in favour of Verlander winning the award!"
"No way! Arguments (g), (j) and (k) clearly establish that a position player should win it."
"Well, let's call it a draw. Can I interest you in a wee dram of scotch?"
Mylegacy - Monday, November 21 2011 @ 11:57 PM EST (#247064) #
Of course you can...
92-93 - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 01:16 AM EST (#247065) #
I think most players would tell you that a pitcher shouldn't be voted for the MVP. I heard Dale Murphy on the Fan with Blair this morning saying that. I also don't think Verlander's season was all that special; Randy Johnson in 2002 won the division with Arizona and was 24-5 2.32era 260ip 334k 1035 batters faced, all league bests, and he was 7th in the MVP race. Pedro Martinez was ridiculous in 1999 and only finished 2nd. Verlander's 170 ERA+ has been outdone at least 20 times in the last 15 years. If Verlander had some incredible season I would understand giving him consideration, but it's silly that the writers bought into the hype of his 24 wins. Would we really be having this discussion if Verlander went 19-5 instead? Aren't we over wins yet, or did they just decide an MVP race?
Mick Doherty - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 01:48 AM EST (#247067) #

Yeah, but, um, he durn throwed a no-hitter ...

(Kidding! Please keep in mind, I am in the no-pitchers-for-MVP, except in xtraordinary circumstances> camp ... 1968 comes to mind when BOTH league MVPs were pitchers. And if you have to look up either one, shame on you! Hints: a 30-game winner and the best ERA in something like ninety years, both for teams that ended up faccing each other in the last "true" World Series ...)


Magpie - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 04:12 AM EST (#247070) #
Pedro Martinez was ridiculous in 1999 and only finished 2nd.

Fine by me - that's as high as I would have put him, too (behind Jeter, not I-Rod.) But you accept that Pedro (and Verlander) was at least eligible for the award? Because that's my problem with Ingraham.
Magpie - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 04:15 AM EST (#247071) #
I think most players would tell you that a pitcher shouldn't be voted for the MVP.

I know most players will tell you that whoever has the most RBIs is probably the best candidate.
Mike Green - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 09:06 AM EST (#247074) #
It's really hard to place pitchers, with Martinez' 1999 and 2000 seasons being classic examples.  He pitched noticeably better in 1999, but was luckier/had better defence in 2000.  Jeter vs. Martinez in 1999 is a tough, tough call.  Martinez' gamelogs for 1999 are a work of art.  He went 23-4, and he pitched brilliantly in his 4 losses.  He really had only 1 bad outing all year (iwhich ended up as a no-decision as the Sox scored 11 runs for him).  Doing all this in a league in which the average team scored 5.18 runs per game would meet Mick's "exceptional" test.

The thing with Martinez in 1999 is that he struck out 313 of the 835 batters he faced.  His ERA is actually worse than one would expect from his performance.  If you give him credit for all that, I suspect that he ends up ahead of Jeter, but I haven't done the math. Jeter's performance in 1999 was pretty comparable to Ellsbury's in 2011; Martinez' performance in 1999 was miles ahead of Verlander's in 2011. 

92-93 - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 09:36 AM EST (#247076) #
The rules make it clear pitchers should be eligible, but they also make it clear they should be an afterthought in the discussion. Poor method, solid conclusion.
Chuck - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 09:42 AM EST (#247077) #

Verlander was on the other end of 969 plate appearances, which is not an insubstantial number.

Yes!!!!! Why don't people see this?

Say Verlander was only involved in 750 opposition plate appearances. Why would that not be analogous to a starting player being involved in 750 offensive plate appearances? The offensive player's PAs are spread out in chunks of 4.5 per game while Verlander's are spread out in chunks of 30 per game. Why should this dispersal method preclude Verlander from being considered for MVP when both are involved in the same number of PAs?

In Verlander's case, all his PAs beyond 750 can be used to offset the defensive contributions of offensive players (who do more than bat 750 times).

Whether Verlander deserved the MVP in 2011 is another issue. But that he not be considered at all is something I can't fathom.


92-93 - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 09:50 AM EST (#247078) #
Because the pitcher has zero involvement in the hitter's plate appearances, but unless the hitter is a DH he's in on every one of those opposition PAs. Bautista was also on the basepaths around 250 times. If you're trying to measure game involvement between Bautista & Verlander, it isn't remotely close.
Mike Green - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 10:03 AM EST (#247080) #
I think it's a bit trickier than that, Chuck.  Batters,on average, have about twice the influence that pitchers do on balls in play, and fielders (of course) have their part.  Which is why Babe Ruth made his fame as a right-fielder.

Of course, if opposition hitters are having unusual difficulty putting balls in play (as in Martinez' 1999), this factor becomes less important.  Verlander's K rate was 3rd in the league and was really not significantly different than several other starting pitchers.  In the general case, it really isn't fair to say that 900 opposition PAs for a pitcher is equivalent to 900 PAs for a batter (or even 650 PAs). 

Chuck - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 10:21 AM EST (#247081) #
Despite the way I presented my argument, I really prefer a more fundamental approach to evaluating starting pitchers for these sorts of purposes (a method that is admittedly far from perfect). How many runs (above average, above replacement, whatever) did this pitcher save me? How many runs (above whatever) did that offensive player create?

Pitchers don't work in a vacuum. Their defense plays a signifcant role. I understand that.

And measuring the runs created/saved is fraught with peril. That I understand as well.

To me, a top flight starting pitcher slots right in with the best position players in terms of value even if all he's doing is eating chicken and drinking beer 127 games a year.
BalzacChieftain - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 11:14 AM EST (#247084) #

If one were to consider a pitcher's PAs against, would it have to be acknowledged that strength of opposition might mean more for evaluating a pitcher than it does for a batter? For example, in each start, a pitcher's opposition strength is heavily concentrated depending on the opponent when compared to a position player, who bats nearly every game against different pitchers.

Chuck - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 11:36 AM EST (#247085) #

If one were to consider a pitcher's PAs against, would it have to be acknowledged that strength of opposition might mean more for evaluating a pitcher than it does for a batter?

Definitely. The whole "strength of opposition" topic often gets raised at Cy Young time, though not necessarily by the mainstream press. I believe that's one of the key arguments for Halladay being more valuable than Kershaw this year.

Mick Doherty - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 11:43 AM EST (#247087) #

Off the top of my head -- I have not thought this through, please feel free to pick iit over -- yjr ABs-faced argument has never quite worked for a starting pitcher because he affects, approximately, 35 games per season (granted durability affected the bullpen and the otehr starteres in the rotiation, but that's minor I think) ... If Bautista affected 155 or so games a year in a positive way, isn't that arguably more valuable than Verlander dominating 30-some?

It's not about total AB affected, it's about total GAMES affected ... innit?

ayjackson - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 11:44 AM EST (#247088) #

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

I had no idea that the voting rules actually define "value".  Why does every writer insist on coming up with their own definition?  Can't they read?

Strength of offence and defence!!!!!! 

And don't tell me pitching is defence.  Pitching is pitching, hitting is hitting and defence is defence.

Chuck - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 11:58 AM EST (#247089) #

If Bautista affected 155 or so games a year in a positive way, isn't that arguably more valuable than Verlander dominating 30-some?

But does he really affect 155 games in a positive way? His 0-for-4's don't help (being below replacement value). His 1-for-4's where the one hit is a single are not terribly helpful (.250 OBP, .250 SLG). Even someone like Bautista is a net negative in many of his games. He probably makes a positive contribution in more games than most, but it is certainly not in all his games.

And just how often can he impact a single game as meaningfully as a starting pitcher?

To my mind, as I argued above, Bautista spread out his goodness, generally speaking, little by little over a lot of games. Verlander's goodness was concentrated heavily and dramatically in many fewer games. On balance, their total goodness nets to roughly the same (for the hand-waving, generalization of this conversation). The only difference is the dispersion pattern of that goodness.

Mike Green - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 12:25 PM EST (#247091) #
Chuck, my reading of the situation is a little different.  In an ordinary year, a top-flight starting pitcher is not quite as valuable as the top two or three position players in the league.  Let's take Roy Halladay 2003.  Clearly a top-flight starting pitcher who had a season basically equivalent to Verlander's 2011.   Halladay received no MVP votes.

Halladay's 2003 is a good season to look at it because his FIP and xFIP are both close to his ERA and his BABIP is within spitting distance of his career norm.  It is likely that he did not get any great particular advantage from his defence or from luck that year.  He did of course have tougher than typical opposition.   Halladay gave up 111 runs in 266 innings in a league where 4.81 runs/game were scored.  A league average pitcher would have given up 142 runs.  However, starting pitchers give up more runs than relief pitchers, so a league average starting pitcher would have given up about 150 runs.  The leading hitters in the league (A-Rod, Delgado, Manny)  produced 50-56 runs above average. Many other players produced between 35-50 and some of them played good defence (Wells, Beltran).  The best position players in the other league (Bonds and Pujols) produced much more than that.

I do think Halladay was one of the best 10 players in the league, but probably not one of the top three that year.  With Verlander, the calculation is much trickier because he benefited from an unusually low BABIP for him without batted ball statistics which would support a change.  If you use the raw runs allowed, you do get enough to make him competitive with Ellsbury and Bautista.  If you make reasonable adjustments to take into account his contribution to run prevention as opposed to everything else, he falls short of them. 

Chuck - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 01:08 PM EST (#247094) #

Mike, I agree with everything you have said. My position, no doubt poorly argued, is that the top flight starting pitchers are generally in the mix with the league's best players and thus should be given consideration at MVP time. In years where position players are particularly outstanding, starting pitchers will typically not be able to compete for top billing (limited by the parameters of what they can do to contribute).

I do part company slightly with you on the idea of adjusting for a pitcher's (or, presumably, hitter's) good luck. Verlander's low BABIP suggests a regression is in order, no question. But for evaluating past performance, I feel he should get to reap the benefits of his luck. The same for a hypothetical homerun hitter who, say, hits all his homeruns just barely over the fence. That might spell trouble for the future, but he should get full credit for his luck retrospectively.

There is certainly an argument to be made for distilling, if possible, the true legitimate value a player contributed, and teasing luck out of the equation. But my feeling is that while this makes sense for forecasting, it's not mandatory for an evaluation of what actually happened. MVP and Cy Young should be based on what happened, now what should have happened (though the latter is certainly an interesting line of inquiry).

Mike Green - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 01:29 PM EST (#247095) #
The problem is that the separation between luck/defence in BABIP is very, very difficult to tease out.  It is reasonable to split things down the middle absent evidence suggesting some other conclusion.  It should be noted that the Tigers' team opposition BABIP was .292, right around league average.  I suppose you could make the case that Verlander's BABIP success in 2011 was purely luck which he should be credited with. 
Chuck - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 01:43 PM EST (#247096) #
Again, I agree with all that you have said. We are certainly getting down to splitting hairs and dancing on the head of a pin and all that. How did we get here??? Oh yeah, discussing the merits of starting pitchers in general, and Verlander in specific, should be considered at MVP time.

While I defend the position that Verlander should be in the discussion, I am not even remotely in agreement with him winning the award. I don't think he would have been in the discussion, as others have noted, were it not for the 24 wins. Had he won 19, say, I'm not sure that he'd have finished in the top ten. The 24 wins makes him overrated. The 19 wins would have likely made him underrated.

Now, can we all just get back to bashing Michael Young and Evan Grant? And tweaking Mick into defending the entire state of Texas and their bizarre man-crush?
Shane - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 01:44 PM EST (#247097) #

On the new CBA: Might as well take back that offer to Omar Minaya 

"If you're a fan of a team that's putting huge investments into scouting/draft/international, that's over. Sorry." - Kevin Goldstein        
whiterasta80 - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 01:53 PM EST (#247098) #
Why are we even bothering to discuss the relative contributions of pitchers vs. hitters to the game? That decision has already been made for us. Pitchers have won the MVP award what, like 12 times? That's including the 30-ish seasons that there wasn't a Cy Young Award.

Speaking of the Cy Young Award, how can anyone realistically argue that a pitcher should be the MVP when THEY HAVE THEIR OWN AWARD. The only hitting equivalent of the Cy Young is the MVP award. Lets keep them seperate and celebrate the great seasons of Verlander and Ellsbury/Bautista together.
BlueJayWay - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 02:22 PM EST (#247100) #
I'm getting the feeling Kevin Goldstein doesn't much like the new CBA.

I wonder if the Jays ginormous scouting department gets cut back now.  It's too bad those avenues of adding cheap young talent - draft and IFA - just got harder to deal with.

Parker - Tuesday, November 22 2011 @ 02:38 PM EST (#247101) #
I have to agree with whiterasta80 on this, at least until a catcher wins the Cy Young for having the league's best CERA.
Bautista is ... not the AL MVP | 48 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.