Pedro in 99 was better, and Bautista this year is having basically the same year Manny had in 99. Besides, Manny didn't even win in 99, it was Rodriguez. If Pedro didn't get it in 99, no pitcher should. And for the record, I am not generally opposed to pitchers getting it, but for consistency's sake I can't be comfortable with Verlander winning it.
I'm opposed to him for this reason. While his effect on games he plays is higher he has no effect on 80% of his team's games. How can he be more valuable than a player who has a slightly lesser impact on 95-99% of his team's games.
Depends how you judge value. Detroit wins 76% of the time Verlander starts vs 52% in other games. Without him, they are an 84 win team and likely not going to the playoffs. I can definitely see the case for him.
Is that the right way to look at it, though? Verlander has been ridiculous, yes, but a pitcher's wins require offensive production. The Tigers have a pretty damn good offense (4th in MLB in runs and OPS). If you're going to credit Verlander for the good, shouldn't we look at the other side of that? In one way, that win % argument basically says Verlander should be judged as more valuable because the other pitchers in the Tigers' rotation were so shitty. I mean, if we're using "wins," why not just got use WAR? Sabathia: 7.1 Verlander: 7.0 Bautista: 8.1 Granderson: 7.3
Pretty misleading stat though as most teams win far more games started by their best pitcher than the average of their 2-5 starters. for example The Red sox won 71.4% of Beckett starts and 53% of Other starts very similar numbers. The simple fact is that a pitcher can only impact 30-35 games a year. Can he have a larger impact on those games, sure, but a player like Jose Bautista impacts every single game. I can't see any situation in which you can argue a pitcher had more value to a team than the best position player.
I agree. Verlander has been the best player in the AL this year. I also thought Pedro was the best in '99. It's a rarity when a Pitcher has had a year as dominant as the '11 Verlander and '99/'00 Pedro seasons.
I don't like the argument that because Pedro didn't win it, Verlander can't. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Where did you get that stat? Verlander's WAR is 8.4 And just look at the Tigers team ERA, their team ERA is over 4 with a guy that has one of the best seasons pitching wise in decades, without him they are fucked.
Manny may of had a better year than Bautista/Granderson and Pedro finished ahead of him in the voting, and it isn't like pitchers have never won it, Roger Clemens won it in 1986 so it isn't like it has never happened, Pedro deserved it in 1999 and Verlander deserves it now.
Fangraphs. Link Right... but that was part of my point. You're rewarding him because the rest of the staff was shitty... shitty enough to put them in danger of missing the playoffs despite a very, very good offense. And Verlander should receive additional credit for his performance because those guys were shitty? If they were better he wouldn't be as deserving? That seems like an odd way to place value.
you're rewarding him because he is the player most valuable to his team. this is the spirit of the award, not who is the best player.
I wouldn't say that. CC is reliable, and definitely impacts the way the team not only plays, but how Girardi can manage his pen in the days before and after his starts, but Granderson and Cano have far more value to the Yankees than CC. I can't stomach the idea that someone should or shouldn't get it based on history. It pisses me off even more when the sportwriters won't unanamously vote in a Hall of Famer. Why, because there have been douchebags who wouldn't vote in Ruth? So the answer is to keep being douchebags? This is it in a nutshell, and has been my argument all along. Without one of Granderson or Cano, the Yankees are still fighting for a playoff spot. Without one of Ellsbury or Gonzalez, the Sox aren't much worse. Without Verlander, the Tigers aren't even in the Wildcard conversation today, much less the home-field one. In almost any other year I disagree with pitchers getting the Most Valuable Player award. In this year, he's the Most Valuable Player to any team in the American League. Exactly. Well, I didn't think Pedro should get it, but maybe that was homerism. But that staff gave up runs while getting the same production Verlander did. That puts a spotlight on just how good he was, and makes him more valuable to his team, since if you replaced him with any of the other guys on his own staff, they'd have lost a lot more games. Right.
But that's just it. I already pointed out that there are no set guidelines for the vote. You don't get to define the spirit of the award. Again: (1) actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense; (2) number of games played; (3) general character, disposition, loyalty and effort; (4) former winners are eligible; and (5) members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.” You want to use Verlander's "strength of offense and defense" by comparing it to the relative weakness of the rest of his pitching staff. But not JUST comparing it the rest of the staff... you're also using the fact that they crossed some rather arbitrary line where you're trying to say that if Verlander didn't have this amazing season, they wouldn't be in the playoffs. Which is kind of messed up. Look at it this way... what if Verlander just had an "okay" season? The Tigers still probably get into the playoffs, even if the rest of the staff sucked. By these guidelines, you're saying that he's still the most valuable, because he got them into the playoffs. It just seems like a really weird way to look at it. I get it. But if it's about the player's performance, just let it be about that. Otherwise players on teams with little depth get rewarded more. And let's be real, with few exceptions, it's mostly about the Most Outstanding Player on a decent/playoff team, not the most valuable player, despite the name. And A-Rod doesn't win the MVP for the last place Rangers if it's about relative value.
Does it put the spotlight on how good Verlander was? Or how shitty the rest of the staff was? See what I mean? Or look at this way, for those of you who want Verlander to win it... what if the Tigers had a better pitching staff and had 6-8 more wins than they currently do. Are you telling me that Verlander - if he had the exact same dominant season - would deserve this award less? If you answer yes to that, it just tells me this is a completely ludicrous award devoid of almost any meaning.
I think the whole.. he's the only reason they made the playoffs is a dumb argument, so if you traded Verlander (7.0 WAR) and a league average player (say ordonez who is a -0.8 WAR) for one of the other contenders (Bautista 8.1 WAR, Ellsbury 8.7 WAR, and a league average pitcher, Detroit makes the playoffs and if it is TOR, they finish just as far out of first.) The winning percentage in games he starts vs others is also a ridiculous argument since the first player I tried it with (Beckett) came up with similar numbers. I understand that Verlander was the most dominant pitcher this year, but he simply doesn't play enough games to have the impact the top hitters do, and WAR supports that theory.
Right, but my original point still stands; you're basically saying that Verlander's greatness should be magnified because the other guys on his team were so shitty.
The award is ludicrous and devoid of meaning. It's not a clear award. If it's for "Best Player" it should be labeled and defined as such. In which case, I'd likely say it was Bautista. Put Bautista on any of the contenders and you likely add a couple of wins just off his bat. If we take the name literally the most valuable player to his team this year is Justin Verlander. Without him they don't have nearly as many wins, likely don't stay so far ahead in the race that it sends everyone else in the divison's thoughts home early, and likely aren't even discussing a possibility of home field at this point. Without Granderson, the Yankees win 95 games. Without Ellsbury, the Sox...still miss the playoffs :rofl: If Detroit had a better pitching staff, for example, if Verlander pitched for Detroit, he wouldn't be as valuable to his team. Who is more valuable to Philly, Lee or Halladay? The answer is that both are valuable, but any team would be instantly improved by adding either of them. Again, if this were a "best player" award, it wouldn't be Verlander. But it's a "most valuable" and he was by far the most valuable single player to a team in the American League this year. And again, I don't want him to win. I want Granderson to win. I just think Verlander deserves to win.
How do you define value though? I use WAR since it actually measures how valuable a player is in terms of wins against an average replacement. If Verlander wasn't on the Tigers but Bautista or Granderson or Ellsbury were the Tigers would have won more games. Because the increased offense would have helped them in all 162 games (defense too especially with Ellsbury.) So yes the replacement pitcher might have won 14 games instead of 21, but the other games started by starters 2-5 would result in more wins. So you are more valuable than another player if your team is worse but not too bad? If the Red Sox make the playoffs just barely does that make Ellsbury the MVP? Because without him they don't make it.
these awards are insane. between the war, and "what if bluh bluh, was on this team, this guy has bluh bluh protecting him, so they have to pitch to bluh bluh.' Verlander will most likely win this.
