Verlander wins AL MVP

I agree! Look at what that team is without him! :breakdance:

I just don't agree that you have to play everyday to be the mvp of your team. A #1 starting pitcher sets the tone for team. In this case Verlander dominated all year long.

Here are his stats (Taken from ESPN) 24 wins, a 2.40 ERA and 250 strikeouts, and threw his second career no-hitter while defining the term "workhorse.'' Verlander went at least six innings in each of his 34 starts. He pitched seven or more innings 25 times, and eight or more innings on 14 occasions. All told, Verlander threw 3,941 pitches this season -- or 167 more than the Angels' Jered Weaver, the No. 2 pitcher in the majors in that category.

 

But it's not a NEW fucking sham. Ted Williams' frozen head agrees with you.

 

The argument that pitchers can't win MVP because they pitch every 5th game is silly

Justin Verlander faced 969 batters in 2011
Jose Bautista had 655 plate appearances.
Jacoby Ellsbury had 729 plate appearances.

Verlander got more OUTS than any leading MVP candidate had APPEARANCES.

 

And Ellsbury been on the field for 4075 outs with 0 errors and drove in 105 runs and scored 119 times while Verlander posted 0's with 5 errors.

 

But Jacoby Ellsbury is a fucking homo. Or is that Pedroia? Youk?

 

He was on the field for those outs? You mean standing there or jogging for 85-90% of those outs?

I get that playing every day is a grind. So is going at least 6 strong in 34 straight starts.

And why do pitchers have to have super historic dominating years to win?

Where do the other candidates rank in the last quarter century amongst all other batters?

For instance, where does Ellsbury rank in OPS+ in the last quarter century? I'd guess lower than 44th as his 146 doesn't crack the top 500 all-time.

 

That doesn't make much sense.

 

How does it make no sense? Soss was making the point that Verlander was on the field for 753 outs/929 BF trying to make it sound like it's a great accomplishment. Any hitter on the list has at least 3-5 times as many outs they've been on the field for. In Ellsbury's case he was on the field for 4075 outs which is more than 5.4 times than Verlander was. Elssbury made 0 errors in those 4075 outs vs. Verlander's 5 in 753. So trying to make it sound like he was great defensively is just dumb. I mean just to drive the point home Ellsbury had 394 defensive chances with 0 errors vs. Verlander's 50 with 5 errors. I just threw in the hitting to show that Verlander did nothing on the other side of the ball as Ellisbury had .321 with 32 home runs 39 SB 119 runs and 105 RBI vs. Verlander's zero's across the board.

 

No, he was pitching for those outs, not "on the field."

And you're bragging about Ellsbury's total of runs scored? Considering he played 158 games and was leading off for what was considered the best offense in baseball, 119 runs scored isn't some elite stat. He only had four more runs than Matt Kemp, who was batting cleanup for a pretty bad offense. He was third in the AL in runs scored.

Soss said:

You turn it into who was on the field more? That makes very little sense.

 

Ellsbury was valuable. If it wasn't for Ellsbury bein' so good in 2011, the Red Sox would not have been in position to embarrass themselves in September. Without Ellsbury, I betcha the Red Sox would have been a couple games over .500 at the start of September.

 

Does a pitcher play defense yes or no? He's on the field when he pitches isn't he? Etc. Etc.
Who the fudge said I was bragging all I was saying is that Ellsbury and Co. contribute on offense unlike Verlander who did nothing. Something > nothing. Besides if I wanted to brag I would talk about his HR total which is high for a lead-off guy.

Soss' point is kind of lame considering that 251 innings pitched is nothing spectacular considering that in the history of baseball the leader of totals innings pitched in a full season was never below 250 until 1990 and didn't happen again until 1999.

Chris Carpenter faced 996 batters where's his trophy? Sabathia faced 985 and Shields faced 975 do they count or no? Batters faced under 1000 didn't happen until 1999. The record for plate appearances was 778 by Jimmy Rollins in 2007 so it's kind of expected for a pitcher to face more batters than a single batter has plate appearances.

 

You brought that up out of nowhere Etc. Etc.

You brought up his runs scored. No one else had mentioned it. Soss certainly didn't. The reasonable conclusion was that you were bragging about his great total as a reason he deserved MVP.

It's more spectacular than Ellsbury's run total, which again, you brought up out of nowhere.

No one in 2010 had 251 IP. No one in 2009 had 251 IP (high was 240 by Verlander). No one in 2007 had 251 IP. No one in 2006 had 251 IP. No one in 2005 had 251 IP.

So if you're keeping score, in the six seasons directly preceding 2011, 251 IP was attained exactly once (Sabathia in 2008, when Milwaukee kept pitching him on three days rest).

Meanwhile, the stats you brought up "And Ellsbury been on the field for 4075 outs with 0 errors and drove in 105 runs and scored 119 times while Verlander posted 0's with 5 errors." are pretty damn commonplace.

Ellsbury had a pretty good season, but if you want to compare how much value they provided to their teams, or how impressive their seasons were compared to what you might otherwise expect from an average player, or which player any GM would choose if given the choice, Verlander wins every time, and that's why I have no problem with him getting the award.

 

I suppose, for me, that in the current trend of pitching-centric baseball atmosphere, putting up great offense numbers seems more special. And probably a gut reaction to Pedro not getting the MVP that he deserved.

 

That, plus, pitchers have their own award. Having a guy who is out there every single game, to me, is more valuable. People say, take Verlander off the Tigers and they don't make the playoffs. Well, if you say that about Verlander, you have to say that about Cabrera. Either way, Detroit was 15 games up in the end, so they were probably good.

I just don't like pitchers getting MVPs. Verlander was clearly the best pitcher. But other than wins, his stats don't stand out that much more than other pitchers, especially once you include NL guys.

 

And batters have their own award: the Silver Slugger.

MVP is for the Most Valuable Player, of any position.

His stats stand out in his league, moreso than any MVP candidate.

 

I like how you glossed over last season with Halladay pitched 250.2 innings in 1 less start and King Felix pitched 249.2, Shields had 249.1 this season in 1 less start. Quit trying to make mediocrity sound good.

Who cares who the GMs want, it's a 1 year award not a career award. Besides Baustista or Ellsbury would of won the MVP easily if they weren't on crap teams. BTW - His ERA was the highest in the past 3 years for any winner.

 

I didn't gloss anything over. I talked about what he had done. He pitched 251 innings, something which has been done one other time in the past seven seasons.

Then you claim it's mediocrity. You're blinded by something, and I think we can suspect what it is.

Who said career? I'm talking about their 2011 seasons and what GMs would choose based on that. Ignore the rest of their careers.

Not sure what that has to do with anything, but I agree that Bautista was deserving. Ellsbury was not, because Bautista was better.

 

Doe Verlander get MVP honors for throwing 251 innings or what he did in those 251 innings? And again it's not that special considering Shields was off by 4 outs in 1 less start and Halladay was off by 1 out in 2010 with 1 less start.

Just for the record I only talked about Ellsbury because he finished 2nd. Did you want Granderson comparisons because he finished 4th or Verlander's teammate Cabrera who finished 5th?

Bautista was deserving and Ellsbury wasn't. Who's biased again? It's one thing to side with a pitcher but it's a whole other thing to dismiss a hitter.

Pitchers shouldn't get any consideration for MVP unless they just simply dominate like Pedro did in 2000. They play in 1/5 of the games for 1/2 of the games(they don't bat do they?) so that's 1/10 of what the hitters do in the AL. Hitters show up for 150-162 games while starting pitchers only show up for 30-35 games and drink beer and eat chicken the other 127-132 games.