PDA

View Full Version : Justin Verlander for MVP?


PKalltheway
08-28-2011, 01:29 AM
Justin Verlander is having quite the season for the Tigers, He's already won his 20th game before September, becoming the first pitcher since Curt Schilling in 2002 to do so. He's also second in the AL in ERA (2.38) and first in WHIP (0.90), strikeouts (218) and innings pitched (215.2). Not only that, he has a decent shot at becoming the first pitcher to notch 25 wins in a season since Bob Welch reeled off 27 for the A's in 1990.

It's pretty clear that without Verlander, the Tigers would likely be a fourth-place team. My question to you: If Verlander continues at his rate and the Tigers win the AL Central, should he win the AL MVP and why?

I say yes. A pitcher isn't in the discussion for MVP every year. However, there are certain seasons where someone comes along and stands out significantly. I believe Verlander is having one of those kind of seasons.

hi im skot
08-28-2011, 01:32 AM
Interesting thought. I think Adrian Gonzalez and Curtis Granderson will get the brunt of the attention, and with Verlander and the Tigers playing in a lousy division, I don't think he'll get serious consideration.

Nellie_Fox
08-28-2011, 01:35 AM
No. I've always been opposed to pitchers winning the MVP. They have their own award. It's even more true now, with five-man rotations. Somebody who only plays in, at most, 33 to 35 games, cannot be more valuable than an everyday player.

BleacherBandit
08-28-2011, 01:35 AM
I don't know. I'm of the persuasion that a pitcher shouldn't be up for the MVP award. He'll probably win the Cy Young, which is a good enough measure of determining the worth of a pitcher over one season.

Players like Adrian Gonzalez and Miguel Cabrera should get consideration because they play every day.

PalehosePlanet
08-28-2011, 01:57 AM
No. I've always been opposed to pitchers winning the MVP. They have their own award. It's even more true now, with five-man rotations. Somebody who only plays in, at most, 33 to 35 games, cannot be more valuable than an everyday player.

Exactly the way I've always felt.

I'll even go a step further and say that a closer should not win the Cy Young award. Unless there are extreme circumstances, such as no dominant starting pitchers in the league that year, a reliever pitching 70 innings should not be considered over a starter who pitches 250 innings.

TDog
08-28-2011, 01:59 AM
No. I've always been opposed to pitchers winning the MVP. They have their own award. It's even more true now, with five-man rotations. Somebody who only plays in, at most, 33 to 35 games, cannot be more valuable than an everyday player.

This is what I'm thinking. A relief pitcher with numerous heroics in numerous games, not necessarily saves, but pitching out of trouble to rescue a team throughout the season, would present a better argument than a starting pitcher, even if the starting pitcher goes out and wins almost every fifth game. I have read, for example, that Jim Konstanty was the consensus NL MVP for 1950 in just such a role.

Nellie_Fox
08-28-2011, 02:09 AM
This is what I'm thinking. A relief pitcher with numerous heroics in numerous games, not necessarily saves, but pitching out of trouble to rescue a team throughout the season, would present a better argument than a starting pitcher, even if the starting pitcher goes out and wins almost every fifth game. I have read, for example, that Jim Konstanty was the consensus NL MVP for 1950 in just such a role.Also, back then the Cy Young award didn't exist, and when they started it they didn't have one for each league, just one overall.

TDog
08-28-2011, 03:02 AM
Also, back then the Cy Young award didn't exist, and when they started it they didn't have one for each league, just one overall.

Konstanty got 18 of 24 first-place votes. No one else got more than 2. It wasn't that he was the league's best pitcher, though. He was the player the team turned to, regardless of the rotation or his rest. Had there been a Cy Young Award, I (not having been born yet) have been told that might have gone to a starting pitcher. But I've always been told Konstanty truly was the pennant-winning team's most valuable player.

Oblong
08-28-2011, 09:31 AM
I voted yes but that's only because I think he's really having one of those legendary pitching seasons that will be talked about for years. This could be his career year. I'd normally say pitchers shouldn't win because they do have their own award but now I'm making an exception, one that I admit I may not make if it were not my team.

There's been a lot of buzz over the last week now about him getting consideration. A week or 10 days ago I'd say he had no shot but now I'm not so sure. I've seen it mentioned nationally by quite a few people so I do think if he keeps up this pace he'll be top 3 at least.

sox1970
08-28-2011, 10:33 AM
Since he's eligible, I would vote for Verlander this year.

However, I'd like to see them change the rules so it's an offensive award only.

It used to be easier to decide, especially when only two teams made the playoffs. It generally just went to the best player of that season whether their team made it or not.

Once they went to four playoff teams in each league, the focus turned more to the player that helped his team get to the playoffs.

In my opinion, it should just be a stats award for the best offensive player. If it's a close call, then I'd go with the contending team player.

PatK
08-28-2011, 11:31 AM
Cy Young yes, MVP no.

Someone pointed out on a thread on another forum discussing the same thing that his WAR is around 7, which means they would still be around the top of the division without him.

hawkjt
08-28-2011, 11:56 AM
Nope. Cy Young? yes. MVP? no.

Verlander is going to run outta gas this last month. He is on pace to pitch over 260 innings and throw way more pitches than anyone in recent years...his arm is gonna fall off,and the Sox will catch the Tigers that last weekend.

sox1970
08-28-2011, 12:16 PM
Nope. Cy Young? yes. MVP? no.

Verlander is going to run outta gas this last month. He is on pace to pitch over 260 innings and throw way more pitches than anyone in recent years...his arm is gonna fall off,and the Sox will catch the Tigers that last weekend.

He's averaged 7 innings per start the last 3 years. That's just good pitching every 5th game, not being overworked. The guy is a horse.

hawkjt
08-28-2011, 12:20 PM
He's averaged 7 innings per start the last 3 years. That's just good pitching every 5th game, not being overworked. The guy is a horse.


His last 9 starts his ERA is 3.40
The 9 starts before that his ERA was .75

He is still good, but he is human,and his arm is starting to fade,just a bit.
He is on pace to pitch 25 more innings than he has ever pitched, in 2009,when he led the league with 240. He is 1st,3rd and 1st in innings pitched the last three years. I think it will catch up to him at some point.

PatK
08-28-2011, 12:33 PM
If Maddux didn't win it in 1994 or 1995, I can't see how Verlander can.

Remember in 1994, Maddux's batting average was higher than his ERA

blandman
08-28-2011, 12:42 PM
I'm not opposed to pitcher's winning it, but I don't think Verlander has been good enough compared to seasons that hitters are having. Before I give it to a pitcher, I'd give it to Jose Bautista. Despite his team not making the playoffs, he's the one really having the "so much better than everyone else" type year that Arod had when he won his MVP in Texas. And it's not like there aren't good candidates on contenders either.

My ballot would start with Bautista, with Jacoby Ellsbury next.

shes
08-28-2011, 01:11 PM
I don't even think he's the best pitcher in baseball this year (Holladay). In fact, the NL doesn't have as strong a candidate offensively as Bautista, so Doc should theoretically have a better shot at winning MVP.

DumpJerry
08-28-2011, 01:12 PM
They were discussing this on Hit and Run this morning on The Score. One point they made was that most full time hitters get around 650 ABs in a season while Verlander, and most other good full time starters, will face over 1,000 hitters in the course of a season. Even though starters are in only 20% or so of the games, he has been a reliable stopper for the Tigers. I could see him finishing in the top three in the voting, but I think most of the MVP voters will assume he is getting Cy Young (not the same group of voters).

Some will point to his W-L record this year and say "without him, they're in fourth place," but that argument assumes that his replacement would be 0-20+ at this point in the season-too much of a stretch.

shes
08-28-2011, 01:44 PM
They were discussing this on Hit and Run this morning on The Score. One point they made was that most full time hitters get around 650 ABs in a season while Verlander, and most other good full time starters, will face over 1,000 hitters in the course of a season. Even though starters are in only 20% or so of the games, he has been a reliable stopper for the Tigers. I could see him finishing in the top three in the voting, but I think most of the MVP voters will assume he is getting Cy Young (not the same group of voters).

Some will point to his W-L record this year and say "without him, they're in fourth place," but that argument assumes that his replacement would be 0-20+ at this point in the season-too much of a stretch.

Yeah, I agree with both points. The whole "He only plays 35 games while hitters play 162" argument doesn't really fly. A pitcher has a cumulative effect on the game over the course of a 162-game season that can equal or even surpass that of a hitter's.

Regarding the second point, Verlander is Detroit's ace, and they pay him as such. If they didn't have him, they would be paying another pitcher to attempt the same job. Let's say for the sake of argument that they had Buehrle instead. The Tigers have won 21 of Verlander's 29 starts (72.4%). The White Sox have won 16 of Buehrle's 25 starts (64%). They have received similar run support (4.52 for Verlander vs. 4.76 for Buehrle). So we can estimate that if Buehrle took Verlander's place, he'd continue to win games at the same rate, meaning that if he had made 29 starts for the Tigers to this point, they'd have won roughly 18.6 of those games. Let's round down to 18 since Buehrle has received a bit more run support this season. That's a difference of 3 wins. Tigers still in first place. Verlander is a horse, more so than most pitchers, so let's say that's worth maybe another 1-2 wins (although Buehrle is one of the few that could match him IP for IP). Tigers still in first place.

The argument that they're not in first place w/o him is untrue. In baseball, there's almost never an instance that one player is the deciding factor in a divisional race when his team is on track to win the division by 8-10 games. This isn't the NBA.

TDog
08-28-2011, 01:53 PM
...

Verlander is going to run outta gas this last month. He is on pace to pitch over 260 innings and throw way more pitches than anyone in recent years...his arm is gonna fall off,and the Sox will catch the Tigers that last weekend.

There were pitchers who threw just as hard as Verlander in four-man rotations who pitched more complete games and didn't run out of gas at the end of the season. Verlander appears to have great mechanics. I don't expect his arm to fall off because he violated an arbitrary innings-pitched or pitch-count limit.

Of course, if he has a bad game in September or even in October, people will say he worked too hard during the season. Some said that was why the White Sox beat him coming out of the All-Star break. And it has to be a reason he struggled to get his 20th win against the Twins on Saturday.

The MVP isn't about stats, although people make it out to be. It certainly isn't about whether pitching stats are more important than hitting stats. It's about the guy who is the biggest, most consistent hero.

WhiteSox5187
08-28-2011, 01:55 PM
I don't think he should win the award but he should certainly get a few votes.

JB98
08-28-2011, 02:43 PM
For me, it's a no-brainer.

The Yankees would still be good without Granderson. The Red Sox would still be good without Gonzalez.

The Tigers are .500 at best without Verlander. He's the best pitcher in baseball this year. The Tigers haven't had any long losing streaks because, well, Verlander wins every time he takes the ball. The guy is just having an awesome year.

I'm sure Verlander will not win MVP, but I'd vote for him.

DumpJerry
08-28-2011, 02:51 PM
Verlander is having a crap year (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/DET/DET201107150.shtml).

Brian26
08-28-2011, 03:17 PM
The Tigers are .500 at best without Verlander. He's the best pitcher in baseball this year. The Tigers haven't had any long losing streaks because, well, Verlander wins every time he takes the ball. The guy is just having an awesome year.

There are occasional years where one pitcher is so dominant that you have to consider him the best player in the entire league.

Not only is Verlander winning most of his games, but even in the games he doesn't get a decision, he keeps his team close. He's also racking up innings, keeping the bullpen fresher for the other Tiger starters. There are other intangibles to look at, but ultimately its a huge confidence boost to a team to know they're basically going to win every 5th day.

I'd have less of a problem with Verlander winning it this year than Willie Hernandez winning it in '84 as a closer.

Marqhead
08-28-2011, 04:39 PM
I don't even think he's the best pitcher in baseball this year (Holladay). In fact, the NL doesn't have as strong a candidate offensively as Bautista, so Doc should theoretically have a better shot at winning MVP.

Matt Kemp is close to a triple crown right now plus 30 steals. I think he's got a legit shot to win it even though the Dodgers suck.

mzh
08-28-2011, 07:07 PM
Have people all of a sudden forgotten about Jered Weaver? His ERA is a full 30 points lower, and if the Angels end up overtaking the Rangers he should have just as legitimate a shot, depending on which one of them goes on a Cliff Lee-esque playoff run. I think many people's skepticism of the Win category might help him in that regard as well.

sox1970
08-28-2011, 07:12 PM
Verlander getting pushed back to Friday against the Sox. He'll get an extra day of rest, and the Sox pay for it.

Looks like he'll get five more starts:

9-2 Sox
9-7 Indians
9-13 Sox
9-18 A's
9-24 Orioles

9-30 Yankees or Red Sox

chisoxfanatic
08-28-2011, 07:43 PM
Verlander getting pushed back to Friday against the Sox. He'll get an extra day of rest, and the Sox pay for it.

Looks like he'll get five more starts:

9-2 Sox
9-7 Indians
9-13 Sox
9-18 A's
9-24 Orioles

9-30 Yankees or Red Sox
Let's hope KC makes them pay for that decision on Wednesday afternoon!

blandman
08-28-2011, 07:45 PM
Verlander getting pushed back to Friday against the Sox. He'll get an extra day of rest, and the Sox pay for it.

Looks like he'll get five more starts:

9-2 Sox
9-7 Indians
9-13 Sox
9-18 A's
9-24 Orioles

9-30 Yankees or Red Sox

We're throwing Danks against him. FWIW Danks has been better than Verlander the last six weeks, as Verlander has come down a bit (probably wearing down from all those innings). The other matchups are Penny vs. Floyd and Fister vs. Buehrle.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that we sweep.

asindc
08-28-2011, 07:46 PM
Verlander getting pushed back to Friday against the Sox. He'll get an extra day of rest, and the Sox pay for it.

Looks like he'll get five more starts:

9-2 Sox
9-7 Indians
9-13 Sox
9-18 A's
9-24 Orioles

9-30 Yankees or Red Sox

It seems that Leyland is not taking it for granted that they will win the division. I guess he doesn't read WSI, otherwise he would know better.

blandman
08-28-2011, 07:47 PM
It seems that Leyland is not taking it for granted that they will win the division. I guess he doesn't read WSI, otherwise he would know better.

I'm calling it now. We'll 2 out or less on Labor Day.

JB98
08-28-2011, 07:48 PM
It seems that Leyland is not taking it for granted that they will win the division. I guess he doesn't read WSI, otherwise he would know better.

He wants to clinch as quickly as possible, as well he should.

If I were Leyland I'd set my rotation to make sure Verlander pitches against the Sox and Cleveland also.

Railsplitter
08-28-2011, 07:48 PM
Yes, especiaily if the Tigers take the division

StillMissOzzie
08-28-2011, 08:01 PM
No. I've always been opposed to pitchers winning the MVP. They have their own award. It's even more true now, with five-man rotations. Somebody who only plays in, at most, 33 to 35 games, cannot be more valuable than an everyday player.

^^^ What he said. Everyday players can't win the Cy Young, which Verlander will probably run away this year, but I don't like pitchers winning the MVP either.

SMO
:gulp:

hawkjt
08-28-2011, 08:06 PM
Verlander getting pushed back to Friday against the Sox. He'll get an extra day of rest, and the Sox pay for it.

Looks like he'll get five more starts:

9-2 Sox
9-7 Indians
9-13 Sox
9-18 A's
9-24 Orioles

9-30 Yankees or Red Sox

So,he is cutting down a start by Verlander to set him up to face the Sox twice? Hmmmm.... interesting move. If they kept him on normal five day rest he would have made 6 starts,and face the Sox once. It is a gamble of sorts, but I guess he sees Verlanders workload and wants to ease up on it. It could cost them a win,tho. Hope it burns him and the Sox beat him twice. If he kept on regular rotation,Verlander would be scheduled to pitch the last game of the season...I hope they need that game and he is not available.

sox1970
08-28-2011, 08:10 PM
So,he is cutting down a start by Verlander to set him up to face the Sox twice? Hmmmm.... interesting move. If they kept him on normal five day rest he would have made 6 starts,and face the Sox once. It is a gamble of sorts, but I guess he sees Verlanders workload and wants to ease up on it. It could cost them a win,tho. Hope it burns him and the Sox beat him twice. If he kept on regular rotation,Verlander would be scheduled to pitch the last game of the season...I hope they need that game and he is not available.

If it starts getting tight, they have an off day so they could move him up to 9-23, and he'll be on regular rest on 9-28 if they need him for Game 162.

Chances of that happening are....remote.

PaleHoser
08-28-2011, 09:17 PM
I believe he has every right to win the MVP. But he won't because he doesn't play in New York or Boston. Whichever of those two draw Detroit in the first round will pay when he sends them home.

With regard to comments about his arm falling off, I agree with the comment that he's a horse. Proof of that was when he hit 100 MPH on his 115th pitch of the game to throw a fastball by Paul Konerko during his last start against the Sox.

Think about that for a moment - when was the last time you saw anyone throw a heater by Paulie, much less on his 115th pitch of the game?

Oblong
08-29-2011, 08:13 AM
Have people all of a sudden forgotten about Jered Weaver? His ERA is a full 30 points lower, and if the Angels end up overtaking the Rangers he should have just as legitimate a shot, depending on which one of them goes on a Cliff Lee-esque playoff run. I think many people's skepticism of the Win category might help him in that regard as well.

Weaver's ERA after yesterday is now 2.28. Verlander's is 2.38.

Leyland kept Verlander on regular 5 day rotation last weekend when an off day would have allowed him to pitch on Sunday against Cleveland. He opted to let him start on Monday at TB. He's very keen on his workload.

PatK
08-29-2011, 11:16 AM
How many of those games were saved by Valverde?

Oblong
08-29-2011, 12:49 PM
11 of his 20 wins were saved by Valverde.

shes
08-29-2011, 04:12 PM
Matt Kemp is close to a triple crown right now plus 30 steals. I think he's got a legit shot to win it even though the Dodgers suck.

As an owner of Kemp in my fantasy league, you don't have to convince me of his greatness. He and Tulo would be 1a and 1b for me in the NL MVP race, with Braun a close third.

That said, I still think Jose Bautista's having the better year. His power and obscenely high BB% (double that of Kemp's and up there with Big Frank's best years) more than makes up for Kemp's better speed.

The Verlander for MVP thing has really come out of nowhere and the media has decided to take up his cause, so there's a good chance he'll win the thing. Reminds me a lot of the Rose for MVP campaign last year.

CWSpalehoseCWS
08-29-2011, 05:59 PM
I don't think he should. He's going to win the Cy Young. That alone should describe his amazing performance this year.

downstairs
08-29-2011, 06:39 PM
Count me in as another who thinks no pitcher should get the MVP. The Cy Young is pretty much as important as MVP, so give him the Cy.

Even if you're 33-0 with a .100 ERA... you can still only help your team 1/5th as much as another player. Ok, because there's only one pitcher maybe a little more than that- but nowhere close to what the best non-pitcher can contribute.

The Cy Young is more of an "individual achievement" award. The MVP takes into consideration the team's success.

Oblong
08-29-2011, 07:31 PM
Count me in as another who thinks no pitcher should get the MVP. The Cy Young is pretty much as important as MVP, so give him the Cy.

Even if you're 33-0 with a .100 ERA... you can still only help your team 1/5th as much as another player. Ok, because there's only one pitcher maybe a little more than that- but nowhere close to what the best non-pitcher can contribute.

The Cy Young is more of an "individual achievement" award. The MVP takes into consideration the team's success.


I don't understand the 'team success'?

Justin Verlander has pitched 18% of his team's innings. Jose Bautista, for example, has come to the plate in 10% of his team's plate appearances. Looks to me like a great pitcher helps his team more in those games than a great hitter does. They may play in every game but still are only 1 out of 9 guys in the batting order. It's not basketball where one guy takes over on every play. A hitter comes to bat 4 or 5 times a game. A pitcher is in on every single pitch they are in the game.

shes
08-30-2011, 01:16 AM
I don't understand the 'team success'?

Justin Verlander has pitched 18% of his team's innings. Jose Bautista, for example, has come to the plate in 10% of his team's plate appearances. Looks to me like a great pitcher helps his team more in those games than a great hitter does. They may play in every game but still are only 1 out of 9 guys in the batting order. It's not basketball where one guy takes over on every play. A hitter comes to bat 4 or 5 times a game. A pitcher is in on every single pitch they are in the game.

This is largely correct. Hitters do not play a larger role in a team's success, even if they do play every day.

I think the MVP ought to be treated as the offensive player of the year award, anyway, as we already have awards for pitching and defense. That way, these sorts of arguments could be avoided.

Nellie_Fox
08-30-2011, 01:36 AM
The MVP takes into consideration the team's success.No it doesn't, at least not always. There have been plenty of guys who got the MVP on a losing team. Ernie Banks won in '58 when the Cubs were 10 games under, and again in '59 when the Cubs were 16 under (yes, in '59, both the AL and NL MVP were in Chicago.)

Fenway
09-20-2011, 10:47 AM
Bob Ryan in the Boston Globe writes why no pitcher should be the MVP - and no reliever should win the Cy Young.


http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2011/09/20/verlander_has_him_detailing_his_pitchers_decision_ on_awards/

Nellie_Fox
09-20-2011, 12:07 PM
Bob Ryan in the Boston Globe writes why no pitcher should be the MVP - and no reliever should win the Cy Young.


http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2011/09/20/verlander_has_him_detailing_his_pitchers_decision_ on_awards/There's already a thread on this. Merged.

soxinem1
09-20-2011, 01:48 PM
If Maddux didn't win it in 1994 or 1995, I can't see how Verlander can.

Remember in 1994, Maddux's batting average was higher than his ERA

Maddux was also blessed with some great rotation-mates, and the team dominated the division for over a decade, so the load of carrying the team was shared, so to speak.

Remember, the award is for 'Most Valuable Player'. True, there is the CYA, however I do not see how DET has a chance to survive the post-season, or even get there creditably, without him.

I do not see any other player in the AL that from day one kept his team afloat like Verlander has, pitcher or position player.

When was the last time the Tigers has a real losing streak? You think Verlander might have something to do with that?

In the age of 180-200 IP 'workhorses', this guy is taking games into and past the eighth inning almost every time out, thus making the whole staff better. The bullpen is not overused and the other starters benefit from his efforts.

If that is not a most-valuable player, I'm not sure what is.:scratch:

Oblong
09-20-2011, 04:02 PM
Obviously I am biased both as a fan and because I've seen every game.

Tigers did have a 7 game losing streak earlier in the year that was broken up by.... ahem.....

Brad Penny.

:redneck

My complaint is the idea that voters won't vote for him simply because he's a pitcher. THe rules state he is eligible. Now if you consider that and feel another player is more valuable... fine. But don't just make up your own rules and not even consider a guy. That's not keeping with the rules of the vote and if you do that then you shouldn't have a vote to begin with.

I woudln't mind if they changed the rules though. Change the name of MVP to something else, like Babe Ruth Award or something, and have one for pitcher and one for hitters.

asindc
09-20-2011, 04:07 PM
Obviously I am biased both as a fan and because I've seen every game.

Tigers did have a 7 game losing streak earlier in the year that was broken up by.... ahem.....

Brad Penny.

:redneck

My complaint is the idea that voters won't vote for him simply because he's a pitcher. THe rules state he is eligible. Now if you consider that and feel another player is more valuable... fine. But don't just make up your own rules and not even consider a guy. That's not keeping with the rules of the vote and if you do that then you shouldn't have a vote to begin with.

I woudln't mind if they changed the rules though. Change the name of MVP to something else, like Babe Ruth Award or something, and have one for pitcher and one for hitters.

This is the best argument I've read for voting for pitchers as the MVP. The rules allow it. Well, "duh," you say? I just think there is no need to go beyond that if you want to vote for a pitcher for MVP. I personally do not think they should be eligible (we have a Cy Young for a reason), but since they are I won't protest if Verlander wins it.

ComiskeyBrewer
09-20-2011, 04:57 PM
Bob Ryan in the Boston Globe writes why no pitcher should be the MVP - and no reliever should win the Cy Young.


http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2011/09/20/verlander_has_him_detailing_his_pitchers_decision_ on_awards/

Shh, nobody remind him about Rollie fingers, his head might explode.

g0g0
09-21-2011, 11:54 AM
This is the best argument I've read for voting for pitchers as the MVP. The rules allow it. Well, "duh," you say? I just think there is no need to go beyond that if you want to vote for a pitcher for MVP. I personally do not think they should be eligible (we have a Cy Young for a reason), but since they are I won't protest if Verlander wins it.

I agree about the rules putting pitchers in the race 100%. But as for your reason why you personally don't think pitchers shouldn't be eligible, I think it's a wash. The Cy Young is no different than hitters getting a Silver Slugger / Hank Aaron award as well as Gold Gloves. There are awards for everyone to get in addition to an MVP trophy. Most Valuable Player is just that - the guy who means the most to their team...and I think Verlander has earned the right to be in the top of the discussion mix.

Fenway
09-26-2011, 12:19 PM
Based on what happened in the Bronx yesterday you have to figure Ellsbury picked up some votes.

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2011/09/26/ellsbury_has_mvp_moment/?page=full