PDA

View Full Version : 2011 AL MVP - Justin Verlander


Fenway
11-21-2011, 02:00 PM
http://bbwaa.com/

soxfanatlanta
11-21-2011, 02:04 PM
Wow, talk about a good year.

soxinem1
11-21-2011, 02:09 PM
He deserved it. If there was one reason DET stayed afloat it was due to avoiding long losing streaks, and having a near-guaranteed win every five days.

Verlander was a stopper in every sense of the word, and had a thoroughly dominating season.

:gulp:

Fenway
11-21-2011, 02:10 PM
He deserves it.

Ellsbury might have won it had Boston made the playoffs - he certainly wasn't the problem.

His teammate Miguel Cabrera apparently got the 2 first place votes from the Detroit writers... :scratch:

aryzner
11-21-2011, 02:17 PM
I'm not usually a fan of a pitcher winning this award, but he did have an incredible season.

palehozenychicty
11-21-2011, 02:21 PM
It's not too surprising. He had the least negative marks of any candidate despite being a pitcher. Kudos again.

Oblong
11-21-2011, 02:27 PM
One writer from Cleveland left JV off the ballot, the other had him 8th....

And Michael Young got a 1st place vote from a TX writer.

doublem23
11-21-2011, 02:32 PM
A surprising and refreshingly good decision from the BBWAA

DirtySox
11-21-2011, 02:38 PM
They got it right. Congrats Mr. Verlander. You are a joy to watch.

Soxman219
11-21-2011, 02:39 PM
He deserves it. Hopefully he peaked and never has a great season like that again from a White Sox perspective.

Domeshot17
11-21-2011, 03:13 PM
I disagree with this. If ever a pitcher did deserve it, he does. But ultimately to me, a team plays about 1500 innings a year, give or take 50 or so innings. I just don't think a player who only plays in something like 15% of his teams innings should be the MVP. There is something about the everyday grind of a hitter and a fielder that a pitcher doesn't experience.

That said, there was not a standout candidate this year, and Verlander was tremendous. I do not have a problem with him winning it, just personally do not believe a pitcher should win the award.

34rancher
11-21-2011, 03:17 PM
I think it is unfair for Verlander to win. He got to face the White Sox too many times to take too much credit for those wins. It's like saying Danny Almeda should be the little league WS HOF for striking out little kids.

Ok, I'll give this to Verlander, as soon as Adam Dunn gets the CY Young for making pitchers look better than they really are.


In all seriousness, he had a great year. Still have difficulty with the idea of someone who plays less than 20% of the innings of his team winning the MVP.

DSpivack
11-21-2011, 03:33 PM
I disagree with this. If ever a pitcher did deserve it, he does. But ultimately to me, a team plays about 1500 innings a year, give or take 50 or so innings. I just don't think a player who only plays in something like 15% of his teams innings should be the MVP. There is something about the everyday grind of a hitter and a fielder that a pitcher doesn't experience.

That said, there was not a standout candidate this year, and Verlander was tremendous. I do not have a problem with him winning it, just personally do not believe a pitcher should win the award.

Verlander pitched in 250 innings this past season and he faced 969 batters, obviously 750 of which were outs. A hitter who plays the whole season will get around 650 at bats, so I'd say the effect on the team is about a wash, though that also would depend on what position the player plays (shortstops would see more defensive opportunities and thus a greater effect on a team's defense than, say, a left fielder).

doublem23
11-21-2011, 03:36 PM
I disagree with this. If ever a pitcher did deserve it, he does. But ultimately to me, a team plays about 1500 innings a year, give or take 50 or so innings. I just don't think a player who only plays in something like 15% of his teams innings should be the MVP. There is something about the everyday grind of a hitter and a fielder that a pitcher doesn't experience.

That said, there was not a standout candidate this year, and Verlander was tremendous. I do not have a problem with him winning it, just personally do not believe a pitcher should win the award.

Do you really believe that just because starters only pitch every 5 days they don't feel the grind of the 162 game schedule? FWIW, Verlander pitched 17% of Detroit's innings this season. Jacoby Ellsbury, who finished second, accounted for 11% of Boston's total PA this season. Defensively, Ellsbury recorded 388 put outs and 6 assists this year. The Red Sox pitching staff pitched 1,457.1 innings this year, or 4,372 outs. So in the field, Ellsbury only accounted for 9% of the defensive outs made. So add everything together and between plate appearances on offense and outs made in the field, Ellsbury, their everyday CF who played 158 games in 2011, was individually responsible for 10.9% of what the Red Sox accomplished in 2011. Seems to be a little more equal than you're giving it credit.

Fenway
11-21-2011, 03:52 PM
One of the Boston voters explains why he voted for Verlander and makes this point...

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2011/11/explaining_my_m.html?p1=Upbox_links


Verlander faced 969 batters this season. Jacoby Ellsbury, by way of comparison, had 729 plate appearances. Obviously, a position player faces more of a challenge physically playing every day in the field. But the idea that a starting pitcher contributes so much less that he should be excluded from the ballot is false.

Chez
11-21-2011, 04:01 PM
Congratulations to Verlander. He had a terrific season.

SephClone89
11-21-2011, 04:43 PM
Congrats. Cool that I got to see him pitch this July (in Minnesota) during such a historic season.

Rocky Soprano
11-21-2011, 05:06 PM
He deserves it.

Ellsbury might have won it had Boston made the playoffs - he certainly wasn't the problem.

His teammate Miguel Cabrera apparently got the 2 first place votes from the Detroit writers... :scratch:

Like clockwork.

:roflmao:

thomas35forever
11-21-2011, 05:12 PM
Congrats to him. He truly deserved it.

slavko
11-21-2011, 05:35 PM
Verlander pitched in 250 innings this past season and he faced 969 batters, obviously 750 of which were outs. A hitter who plays the whole season will get around 650 at bats, so I'd say the effect on the team is about a wash, though that also would depend on what position the player plays (shortstops would see more defensive opportunities and thus a greater effect on a team's defense than, say, a left fielder).


It's picking, but 250 X 3 doesn't equal 750 because of all the double plays which count as only one batter. No offense, bro.:smile:

MarksBrokenFoot
11-21-2011, 06:36 PM
It's picking, but 250 X 3 doesn't equal 750 because of all the double plays which count as only one batter. No offense, bro.:smile:

He pitched 250 innings. It doesn't matter how many double plays there were, there are always 3 outs per inning. That means he accounted for 750 outs.

TDog
11-21-2011, 07:59 PM
It's not a bad choice. I wouldn't have voted for him in the top three, but the reason the writers have 10 places in the weighted vote is that there are so many valid choices. It isn't like Derek Jeter ended up with the award.

I don't believe Verlander would have won if there had been so much lobbying for him to win it in September. There is always lobbying, but I've never seen so much open lobbying for one player, which was supplemented by open discussion of whether a starting pitcher should win the award. I don't know that Verlander personally lobbied for the award, although reporters asked him a lot of questions about whether he thought he was deserving, something that reporters wouldn't have asked Cabrera, who I might have put higher up on my ballot, if I had one.

I can understand putting him eighth, as one writer did. A starting pitcher in a five-man rotation in the DH league where he does nothing offensively to help his team -- no bunting, no hitting behind the runner, no RBIs in close games -- should be considered when you have offensive heroes from three divisional races. Of course, Verlander had such an incredible season. History will judge whether it was a career season.

The Tigers wouldn't have won without Verlander. But they wouldn't have won without Cabrera. Or maybe they would have. Between the All-Star break and the ALCS, absolutely everything went right for them. And Verlander was the face of the team.

Viva Medias B's
11-21-2011, 10:12 PM
Call me old school, but I don't think pitchers should get the MVP. Pitchers should get the Cy Young which Verlander did. I am still steamed that Dennis Eckersley got the 1992 AL MVP over Frank Thomas. I am convinced to this day that Eckersley got the award because the BWAAA didn't Thomas to win it that year. Of course, Frank did get it in 1993 and 1994, but the BWAAA would have looked really stupid if they hadn't given it to him. Then again, the BWAAA gave it to the roided up Jason Giambi at Frank's expense in 2000.

shes
11-22-2011, 12:34 AM
It's not a bad choice. I wouldn't have voted for him in the top three, but the reason the writers have 10 places in the weighted vote is that there are so many valid choices. It isn't like Derek Jeter ended up with the award.

I don't believe Verlander would have won if there had been so much lobbying for him to win it in September. There is always lobbying, but I've never seen so much open lobbying for one player, which was supplemented by open discussion of whether a starting pitcher should win the award. I don't know that Verlander personally lobbied for the award, although reporters asked him a lot of questions about whether he thought he was deserving, something that reporters wouldn't have asked Cabrera, who I might have put higher up on my ballot, if I had one.

I can understand putting him eighth, as one writer did. A starting pitcher in a five-man rotation in the DH league where he does nothing offensively to help his team -- no bunting, no hitting behind the runner, no RBIs in close games -- should be considered when you have offensive heroes from three divisional races. Of course, Verlander had such an incredible season. History will judge whether it was a career season.

The Tigers wouldn't have won without Verlander. But they wouldn't have won without Cabrera. Or maybe they would have. Between the All-Star break and the ALCS, absolutely everything went right for them. And Verlander was the face of the team.

Yeah, the media salivating over the story of him winning it clinched it for him, but the same thing happened for Derrick Rose last year, so I ain't complainin.

CWSpalehoseCWS
11-22-2011, 02:28 AM
I agree with what Frank Thomas said on his Twitter. No way does he deserve this. He already got his Cy Young, and rightfully so. He had a hell of a year, but MVP's belong to the hitters over 162 games.

DirtySox
11-22-2011, 02:41 AM
I agree with what Frank Thomas said on his Twitter.

Wow. Frank actually said something on Twitter that wasn't him shilling his ****ty beer?

Oblong
11-22-2011, 08:29 AM
I agree with what Frank Thomas said on his Twitter. No way does he deserve this. He already got his Cy Young, and rightfully so. He had a hell of a year, but MVP's belong to the hitters over 162 games.

Did Frank feel that way in 2000 when he DH'ed for 127 games?

Verlander threw 3941 pitches and faced 969 batters. Ellisbury 2818 pitches and made 732 plate appearances. Looks to me like Verlander "played" more.

The guidelines explicity says that pitchers and DH's are eligible. If it should exclude pitchers then they should rename it from MVP to a former great hitter, like the Cy Young for pitchers, and just have two separate awards.

g0g0
11-22-2011, 09:27 AM
Well deserved and spot on. He was my hands down pick to win both.

I just hope he isn't following his idol Clemens too much. :tongue: