Verlander wins AL MVP award....what say you?

[S2M]

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7265534/cy-young-winner-justin-verlander-detroit-tigers-wins-al-mvp

In a sport where the criteria for awards changes year to year...I can't agree with this. Especially since Pedro didn't get it in '99 after winning the pitching triple crown with numbers that make Verlander's numbers this year look like John Lackey's....

Detroit won the division by 15 games....Verlander won 24 games....how valuable could you be if the team could have inserted any scrub in your place, and still won the division?

[Ehwmatt]

It's a tough justify in my book when he only plays in 1/5th of the games. So in a sense, you're right with your little statistic.

But I think the individual wins/margin of winning the division statistic is a bad benchmark. Success in pro sports, especially one with as long a season as MLB, often turns on confidence and swagger (assuming they are at least relatively talented compared to other teams in the league).

Verlander's lights-out pitching this year set the tone for that team. It let everyone else, not the least of which his other starting pitchers, loosen up and play good ball. So I think he contributed far more than 24 wins.

[S2M]

It's a tough justify in my book when he only plays in 1/5th of the games. So in a sense, you're right with your little statistic.

But I think the individual wins/margin of winning the division statistic is a bad benchmark. Success in pro sports, especially one with as long a season as MLB, often turns on confidence and swagger (assuming they are at least relatively talented compared to other teams in the league).

Verlander's lights-out pitching this year set the tone for that team. It let everyone else, not the least of which his other starting pitchers, loosen up and play good ball. So I think he contributed far more than 24 wins.

Where are these 'lights-out' stats you are referencing?

[xflajrnylvr]

I think its not deserved he choked in the playoffs and like mentioned only played in handful of seasons games

[S2M]

I think its not deserved he choked in the playoffs and like mentioned only played in handful of seasons games

Well, it IS a regular season award....however, making the playoffs should not be a criteria( *I* think it should, personally) because players have won it on teams not making the playoffs:

A-Rod '03
Cal Ripken '91
Yount '89
Bell '87
Mattingly '85
Fingers '81

And honestly, the ONLY stat that should matter in MVP voting is Wins Above Replacement(WAR)...Ellsbury had the highest in the AL with a 9.4. Verlander had a 7.0.

[Rockindeano]

Who cares? A Red Sox didn't win. Good.

[S2M]

Who cares? A Red Sox didn't win. Good.

I'm more concerned with the inconsistency of the criteria, than whether a Red Sock won it or not.....

[Rockindeano]

Who cares? A Red Sox didn't win. Good.

I'm more concerned with the inconsistency of the criteria, than whether a Red Sock won it or not.....

Button the Fuck up, Daisy.

Ok seriously? Ellsbury had nice numbers, but they weren't Jose Bautista numbers to be sure; I knew you would come in here whining that Ellsbury LOST the MVP. Verlander was exceptional. He won it because a position player certainly didn't put up huge numbers to take it away from Justin.

And to the poster who said he "choked" in the playoffs, save it. The award is voted on before the playoffs even start.

[S2M]

Who cares? A Red Sox didn't win. Good.

I'm more concerned with the inconsistency of the criteria, than whether a Red Sock won it or not.....

Button the Fuck up, Daisy.

Ok seriously? Ellsbury had nice numbers, but they weren't Jose Bautista numbers to be sure; I knew you would come in here whining that Ellsbury LOST the MVP. Verlander was exceptional. He won it because a position player certainly didn't put up huge numbers to take it away from Justin.

And to the poster who said he "choked" in the playoffs, save it. The award is voted on before the playoffs even start.

AGAIN....I do not care that Ellsbury didn't win it. I just want to know exactly WHY verlander won it. What criteria are the voters using?

Pedro lost the award to Pudge Rodriguez in '99, and he had stats that make Verlander's look like Lackey's....

[Rockindeano]

Who cares? A Red Sox didn't win. Good.

I'm more concerned with the inconsistency of the criteria, than whether a Red Sock won it or not.....

Button the Fuck up, Daisy.

Ok seriously? Ellsbury had nice numbers, but they weren't Jose Bautista numbers to be sure; I knew you would come in here whining that Ellsbury LOST the MVP. Verlander was exceptional. He won it because a position player certainly didn't put up huge numbers to take it away from Justin.

And to the poster who said he "choked" in the playoffs, save it. The award is voted on before the playoffs even start.

AGAIN....I do not care that Ellsbury didn't win it. I just want to know exactly WHY verlander won it. What criteria are the voters using?

Good question. Buster Only spouted off some shit about Bautista not winning because Toronto wasn't competitive. Huh? It's an INDIVIDUAL award! The numbers DO matter, not the teams final placing. That's why Ellsbury didn;t win, and Verlander did, IMO.

[S2M]

Detroit plays in the worst division in MLB...won the division by 15 games. Verlander won 24 games. 24-15 = 9 . If Verlander was replaced by a scrub who could only manage 10 wins....they still would have won the division. That doesn't make Verlander sound very valuable. Like I said Ellsbury had a WAR of 9.4 - Verlander's was 7.0

Draw your own conclusions....even Pedroia had a higher WAR than JV at 8.0

[Enigma869]

I don't have a problem with Verlander winning the MVP, because he was that dominant. That said, Pedro not winning the MVP (especially now that Verlander won it) in 99 was ABSURD!

Verlander - 24-5
Pedro - 23-5

Verlander - 2.40 ERA
Pedro - 2.07 ERA (Which might be the lowest ERA in the past 40 years)

Verlander - 0.92 WHIP
Pedro - 0.92 WHIP

Verlander - 250 Strikeouts
Pedro - An astonishing 313 Strikeouts!

Martinez had the most dominant year that I've ever seen a pitcher have and didn't win the MVP, so apparently some baseball writers have changed their stance on whether or not a pitcher is worthy of MVP consideration.

[conversationpc]

I don't have a problem with Verlander winning the MVP, because he was that dominant. That said, Pedro not winning the MVP (especially now that Verlander won it) in 99 was ABSURD!

Verlander - 24-5
Pedro - 23-5

Verlander - 2.40 ERA
Pedro - 2.07 ERA (Which might be the lowest ERA in the past 40 years)

Verlander - 0.92 WHIP
Pedro - 0.92 WHIP

Verlander - 250 Strikeouts
Pedro - An astonishing 313 Strikeouts!

Martinez had the most dominant year that I've ever seen a pitcher have and didn't win the MVP, so apparently some baseball writers have changed their stance on whether or not a pitcher is worthy of MVP consideration.

As good as he was that year, he may have been even better the following year. He had his best ERA+ number that year. As a matter of fact, in all of baseball history, Pedro's adjusted ERA is #1 all time. Amazing.

[S2M]

I don't have a problem with Verlander winning the MVP, because he was that dominant. That said, Pedro not winning the MVP (especially now that Verlander won it) in 99 was ABSURD!

Verlander - 24-5
Pedro - 23-5

Verlander - 2.40 ERA
Pedro - 2.07 ERA (Which might be the lowest ERA in the past 40 years)

Verlander - 0.92 WHIP
Pedro - 0.92 WHIP

Verlander - 250 Strikeouts
Pedro - An astonishing 313 Strikeouts!

Martinez had the most dominant year that I've ever seen a pitcher have and didn't win the MVP, so apparently some baseball writers have changed their stance on whether or not a pitcher is worthy of MVP consideration.

As good as he was that year, he may have been even better the following year. He had his best ERA+ number that year. As a matter of fact, in all of baseball history, Pedro's adjusted ERA is #1 all time. Amazing.

Not to mention those numbers were amassed in the midst of the steroid era.....which makes them all the more incredible.

[Rockindeano]

Martinez had the most dominant year that I've ever seen a pitcher have and didn't win the MVP, so apparently some baseball writers have changed their stance on whether or not a pitcher is worthy of MVP consideration.

Or maybe the writers just didn't much like the little bastard, which frankly has nothing to do with award, (but you know some writers are like that). Either you're good enough or your not.

Secondly, writers need to ALL settle on a criteria...I say ALL writers, because some writers believe a pitcher should be able to win the MVP while others do NOT think a pitcher is worthy of the award.

[Rockindeano]

Not to mention those numbers were amassed in the midst of the steroid era.....which makes them all the more incredible.

Um, no. Steroids do not help you to hit a baseball. it may help your strength to hit it hard and far, but the primary use is for training and recovery from working out.

[Enigma869]

Secondly, writers need to ALL settle on a criteria...I say ALL writers, because some writers believe a pitcher should be able to win the MVP while others do NOT think a pitcher is worthy of the award.

Precisely my point. The writers who don't believe that pitchers should ever be eligible for the MVP Award should recuse themselves from the voting until MLB states that pitchers are no longer eligible for consideration.

[S2M]

In 1999, LeVelle Neal of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, and George King of the New York Post, said they could not justify giving the award to a player who participates every fifth day. They also argued that pitchers have their own award in the Cy Young, Martinez won that unanimously that year.

Shady thing is....the year before - King gives votes to two other pitchers for MVP - David Wells, and Rick Helling.

So when I say the criteria changes year-to-year....it actually does.

And let's not get into how Pedro was robbed of the '02 Cy Young...

[jestor92]

If the Tigers didn't have Verlander or if Verlander would've pitched like #3 or 4 starting pitcher the Tigers don't make the playoffs. Verlander was the team's MVP and IMO he was the AL MVP. I think Pedro should've been the MVP when he had that monster year. All those players who didn't win the MVP award like Ellsbury, Bautista, etc., hey that's nice but your teams would've been sitting home if you performed like that or not. You're going to get your Silver Slugger Award (which is the award for the best hitter at each respective position), but the MVP is the player who is most valuable to his team. Verlander was the Tiger's and the AL's MVP this year.

[S2M]

If the Tigers didn't have Verlander or if Verlander would've pitched like #3 or 4 starting pitcher the Tigers don't make the playoffs. Verlander was the team's MVP and IMO he was the AL MVP. I think Pedro should've been the MVP when he had that monster year. All those players who didn't win the MVP award like Ellsbury, Bautista, etc., hey that's nice but your teams would've been sitting home if you performed like that or not. You're going to get your Silver Slugger Award (which is the award for the best hitter at each respective position), but the MVP is the player who is most valuable to his team. Verlander was the Tiger's and the AL's MVP this year.

Sorry, not buying it....Sox ended up ONE game out. So are you telling me that if the Sox win that 91st game - you would have accepted Ells as the MVP winner? 91 wins = MVP.....90 wins = no MVP? Bogus....

Furthermore, for the simple fact that they won by 15 games....should negate ANY talk about value. He wins 24 games and they win by TWO games? Now you have a case.

[conversationpc]

If the Tigers didn't have Verlander or if Verlander would've pitched like #3 or 4 starting pitcher the Tigers don't make the playoffs. Verlander was the team's MVP and IMO he was the AL MVP. I think Pedro should've been the MVP when he had that monster year. All those players who didn't win the MVP award like Ellsbury, Bautista, etc., hey that's nice but your teams would've been sitting home if you performed like that or not. You're going to get your Silver Slugger Award (which is the award for the best hitter at each respective position), but the MVP is the player who is most valuable to his team. Verlander was the Tiger's and the AL's MVP this year.

Sorry, not buying it....Sox ended up ONE game out. So are you telling me that if the Sox win that 91st game - you would have accepted Ells as the MVP winner? 91 wins = MVP.....90 wins = no MVP? Bogus....

I'm not upset about the MVP vote. However, Ellsbury should have won with Granderson a close 2nd, in my opinion. Ellsbury had the best all-around season of anyone...Batting average, power, stolen bases, defense, etc. Also, his offensive numbers were done mostly from the leadoff position, driving in all those runs with at least one guaranteed at bat per game with no one on base in front of him.

[mrsromek]

Pedro didn't win the MVP in '99 because he is outspoken (nothing wrong with that IMO), but Selig's MLB doesn't like guys like that. Bud likes ass kissers, a la Sosa and Big Mac. You know, the guys that get away with not telling the truth in court, but put a lot of asses in the seats.

Same reason Albert Belle didn't win the AL MVP in 95/97. He's a jerk, but played pretty damn hard between the lines.