http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...ista.ellsbury.ap/index.html?section=si_latest And he deserved it! Congrats Verlander
Whether or not you think it should've been Bautista, or Granderson or Ellsbury or whomever, I know one thing. Voting in Verlander is a fucking cop out and disgrace. How could you say he was the most valuable player when he takes the ball once out of every 5 days. It's not like the Tigers first baseman played almost every day and hit .340 or anything...
Is it really that much of a suprise? I remember hearing that Rivera finished in the top 10 in MVP voting a few times so there are obviously some real wackos out there that get to vote on this. At least Verlander is a starter.
Should have been Ellsbury, Bautista, Cabrera, or Granderson over Verlander. 24 wins is great, but his other, more important numbers, are great, but they aren't so phenomenal that he deserves the word, pitching every 5 days.
It goes back to what the voters define as value. Dominant aces have more of an effect on their teams than just on the day they pitch. He definitely deserved consideration, though I didn't think he had a chance in Hell of winning. Bautista's pedestrian second half, the BoSox epic collapse, hyped all year, etc; a lot of things broke just right for JV.
Can't say that I saw that coming. It really is fascinating what the voters consider value to be. For a player to win the Cy Young + MVP, though, I would want a truly otherwordly performance. If I were a voter, I'd give an edge to the position player if it is at all a close call.
I don't have a problem with Verlander winning. I'd like to revisit the Pedro vote with George King now, though.
Complete bullshit. He didn't even have THAT dominant a year. It was the 44th best year in terms of ERA+ since Clemens won the MVP, and 158th all time. To put that in perspective, Clay Buchholz had a better ERA+ in 2010, and Greinke was way better in 2009, but no one considered them MVP candidates. Kershaw was just as good this year and he's got no shot at the NL award. Hell, Jared Weaver had as legitimate a claim to the AL Cy Young as Verlander did, and he didn't get a single vote for MVP. But somehow David Robertson did. This award is a fucking sham.
It's not all about ERA or Wins. Verlander was the most dominant player in the AL this year and had the best pitching season since Pedro in 1999 / 2000. (and I definitely thought Pedro was the MVP in 1999).
Deserved. Bautista was the only other guy who deserved to be in the discussion, IMO. Granderson or a Red Sox winning it would've been a disgrace.
Bautista had nobody around him in the batting order (Aaron Hill, Corey Patterson, Thames batted 2nd...and Lind/Encarnacion batted cleanup). He was seeing garbage pitching all year, and still put up MVP type numbers. Verlander was excellent....but i think it should've went to Bautista.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_2011.shtml Shields getting votes for a 16-12 season = joke. How is that valuable? If his team can't win with him pitching how is he valuable? Avila 12th with a pedestrian 19 HR 82 RBI .295 just screams MVP doesn't it. The should really just give out ballots with 10 names and just make people pick from that since some of these voters are brain dead.
He desrved it! Good for Verlander! He was the most valuble player, it is not "The most valuable player who plays every day! Award"
