Both. And neither was mediocre. Once again, Verlander pitched more innings than all but one pitcher in the last seven years. That's not mediocrity. Neither was his peformance in those starts mediocrity. You.
Worst argument yet. You keep harping on the 251 like it's some sort of record, it's not. Verlander's year was closer to the pack than anyone. The only thing that was significant was that his offense supported him that's what got him the MVP the fact that his team managed to score enough to get a lead and not blow it. Why wasn't Weaver in the running he had a 2.41 ERA vs. Verlanders 2.40? Me really? I'm just dismissing a pitcher who had comparable stats to 2 other pitchers who weren't even close to winning while you go on to say that the guy who finished 2nd didn't deserve to be considered at all. What a joke. Go look up King Felix's 2010 numbers and Grienke's 2009 numbers and tell me why Verlander deserved it over them. Same for Lee in 2008 and Santana in 2004/06 or for a greater challenge Pedro's 1999/2000 seasons.
I didn't say it was a record. I simply said it has only been done one other time in the last seven years, and you dismiss it as mediocrity. What a joke. The guy who finished second did not deserve the award because two guys in his league were more deserving than him. That simple. Worst argument ever. I'm not arguing Verlander over them. I'm arguing Verlander this year. Obviously Pedro deserved to win an MVP. Where did I say he didn't? But Pedro being cheated over 10 years ago doesn't mean that Verlander shouldn't get it this year. That's a nonsensical argument. Award voting evolves. According to your line of thinking, Felix and Greinke shouldn't have won Cy Youngs because many previous pitchers were cheated out of MVPs due to inferior win totals, and therefore Felix and Greinke shouldn't win either with relatively low win totals. Things change.
Fielding is a job, not a craft. Yes a good fielder is an asset, but not something you win MVP for. It's why great hitters who can't field get just as much money as great hitters who can.
It's part of the total package. A great hitter who combines as a great fielder is worth even more. And in centerfield, as well as shortstop and catcher, fielding isn't just a "job," it's a craft, whatever that means. At those positions, defense is at a premium, and Ellsbury was fantastic. I just don't think Verlander's season was that separated from the pack where he deserves MVP. He's got a point, look at past years, other than wins, Verlander's numbers are right there with guys that got little to no MVP love. A hitter makes an impact 160 games or however many he plays. A pitcher makes an impact in his starts. I won't buy the "but all the innings he eats makes life easier on the bullpen" argument, unless you also agree that a great hitter makes life easier on the hitters in front of, and behind him. Both statements are correct. To me, voting for Verlander is sort of a cop-out. It fits the narrative well, and none of the other great offensive candidates were considered the only good player on a playoff team, or had such a dominant year you couldn't ignore them. There was no clear MVP, so the easy choice is to just go with the pitcher who had the best season. I do have bias that pitchers shouldn't win MVP, and while Verlander had a great year, I still wouldn't vote for him over a few hitters. If Jonathan Papelbon makes that save, and Dan Johnson doesn't hit that home run, Ellsbury would have been MVP. And anyone who says without Verlander, Detroit misses the playoffs, maybe that's true. But you can say the exact same thing about Miguel Cabrera on that team.
To reiterate what I said, I never said Verlander this year had the greatest pitching season ever, or that it was better than Pedro's 1999 season, or that Pedro didn't deserve MVP that year. He did deserve it, and got robbed by a couple of haters leaving him off the ballot. However, that should not mean that since he was cheated out of an MVP, that no pitcher ever should win MVP. Injustices happen all the time in awards voting. I merely think that Verlander and Jose Bautista were the two most valuable players in the AL this season, and I thus don't have a problem with Verlander winning it. On my way home from work, I read an article by Jim Caple, who apparently agrees with me. After a satirical bit at the beginning, he returns to serious topics and says:
