Skip to content

Justin Verlander wins the AL MVP Award

Nov 21, 2011, 2:14 PM EDT

Texas Rangers v Detroit Tigers - Game Five Getty Images

You can stuff your “pitchers can’t win the MVP Award” nonsense in a sack, mister, because Justin Verlander just won the 2011 MVP Award.

Verlander — the first starting pitcher in 25 years to be named MVP — got 13 of 28 first place votes.  He only got 27 of a possible 28 overall votes, however, meaning someone left him off because they want to make their own rules for the MVP and not follow BBWAA guidelines. Which is fun.  In other hilarious voting totals, Michael Young got a first place vote. You’ll never guess who cast it. Seems boneheaded to me.

Following Verlander in order: Jacoby Ellsbury, Jose Bautista, Curtis Granderson, Miguel Cabrera and Robinson Cano.

As we noted last week when he took the Cy Young, Verlander won the AL’s Triple Crown of pitching with 24 wins, a 2.40 earned run average and 250Ks.  He also led the AL in winning percentage, innings and opponents’ batting average. His 24 wins is the most for a pitcher since 1990 when Bob Welch won 27 games.  Of course Verlander’s season was way better than Welch’s, which tells you all you need to know about wins.

There are going to be people who rant and rave about this. Don’t listen to them. No, Verlander’s season was not historic for a pitcher, but that’s not the standard for making a pitcher an MVP.  He was outstanding and each of the position player candidates had a flaw, either in their legitimate candidacy or in the accepted narratives voters tend to like (e.g. they play for a winning team, etc.).

A perfect storm, if you will, blowing the MVP hardware in Justin Verlander‘s direction.

196 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. phukyouk - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:17 PM

    BS!

    • yankeesgameday - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:45 PM

      Phukyouk, your screen name is making sense all of a sudden. You’re Jacoby Ellsbury aren’t you?

      • phukyouk - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:54 PM

        nope

      • cur68 - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:02 PM

        Derek Jeter, then? If so, I take back all the mean things I said about you and can I have Minka’s phone number?

      • phukyouk - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:06 PM

        nah…I just had Youk more than anyone else in the world

      • phukyouk - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:14 PM

        WOW! Edit fail!
        HATE not HAD.. Sigh…..

      • cur68 - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:15 PM

        Oh. So…no Minka then? Fine. Jeter-hate back on.

      • phukyouk - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:24 PM

        Minka isnt his anymore anyway… now is your best shot…

      • cur68 - Nov 21, 2011 at 4:10 PM

        I know, man! I need her phone number to take that shot, dig? Otherwise its know as “stalking” and I hear this is frowned upon.

    • massivedick - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:56 PM

      phukyouk …. I see you. You sitting in your stretched out tightie whities in front of your Gateway 2000 … 1 saved favorite to NBC sports and 52 to porn sites. Nothing to do since you did your bidness already and only good for once a day. So you bag on JV … To the educated baseball fan the obvious choice. To the frequenter of left handed websites .. you just don’t understand.

      • cur68 - Nov 21, 2011 at 4:12 PM

        Your screen name “massivedick” is not an ironical statement then, I take it?

      • phukyouk - Nov 21, 2011 at 4:51 PM

        WHAT THE FU*K ARE YOU DOING LOOKING THROUGH MY MOMS BASEMENT WINDOW YOU FUC*KING PERV!

  2. wendell7 - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:21 PM

    I think it should have gone to Ellsbury, … but congrats JV

    • phukyouk - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:23 PM

      any of the others just not him. its so beyond fucked up that a player that plays in less than 10% of the season can even be considered for this. I mean up next they Will try to see if Cliff Lee can win the batting title. Like every other award in MLB there should be a min number of appearances to win the MVP and it most certainly should not be anything less than 81 games

      • drmonkeyarmy - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:24 PM

        Less than 10% of the season is a bit of hyperbole, no?

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:40 PM

        Verlander participated in 904 ABs (I’m not sure if that includes his 54 walks, but it does not really matter).
        Ellsbury had 660
        Bautista 513
        Granderson 583

        You could argue that the other guys racked up more chances in the field, but the other three are all OFs, so anything that does not come their way means they are spectators. Pitchers are positioned on nearly every play, backing up, covering etc.

        Can we stop saying that pitchers are only play 20% or less of the team’s games? Thank you.

      • thefalcon123 - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:42 PM

        But, in those <10% of games, he is involved in every. single. play. on defense. As where a hitter comes up 4 times on offense and has 4 or 5 plays on defense, Verlander faces 25-30 batters per game. It tends to kind of even out.

      • bowens3181 - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:42 PM

        Thats an invalid argument because if you actually compare the number of batters that Verlander faced compared to the number of at bats each individual player has, it’s really not that big of a difference. If you’re going to say that Verlander only plays 10% of the games because he only plays 7-8 innings of 35 games a year, then you also have to admit that each position player is only plays 1/9th of the games during a year, and even less than that if you count defensive switches and pitch-hitters/runners.

      • thekcubrats - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:46 PM

        Verl faced over 200 more batters than any player had PA. And he fielded his position. In other words, he had much more of an effect on the season than any hitter. If facts matter…

      • phukyouk - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:46 PM

        Oh give me a break.. He faces 20-27 Batters per game but I would say ( do not have the stat in front of me) that, after releasing the ball, He interacts with MAYBE 5 or 6 plays the whole game. your argument is a good one if ONLY they had an award for most valuable pitcher.

      • thefalcon123 - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:23 PM

        “Oh give me a break.. He faces 20-27 Batters per game but I would say ( do not have the stat in front of me) that, after releasing the ball, He interacts with MAYBE 5 or 6 plays the whole game. your argument is a good one if ONLY they had an award for most valuable pitcher.”

        Okay, I see the confusion now. You see, I know that pitchers *used* to have to throw the ball over the plate wherever the hitter wanted it, but baseball changed that rule over a century ago. I know news travels slow, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Thinking this was still the case in much less stupid than what you just said about releasing the ball.

      • phukyouk - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:26 PM

        I’m sorry… he also throws to first, second and third from time to time. But just so i understand you correctly the Pitchers role in the game is like 50% pitching and 50% defense, right?

      • thefalcon123 - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:50 PM

        “I’m sorry… he also throws to first, second and third from time to time. But just so i understand you correctly the Pitchers role in the game is like 50% pitching and 50% defense, right?”

        You have, 100%, completely lost me. About 0.1% of his role his fielding. The other 99.9% of the time is him releasing the ball of his hand and guys not hitting it and not getting on base.

    • phukyouk - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:28 PM

      you know what i mean.. he plays in 35 games a year and even then its only 7 or 8 innings for the most part. My point is that there should be a min that you have to hit in order to qualify. honestly.. If some of the regular players played every 5th day then they would most likely qualify for the batting title and hit close to .400. Would you be OK with them winning the Title? Were you OK with What Reyes did to win the title?

      • drmonkeyarmy - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:33 PM

        I was actually Okay with what Reyes did to win the batting title.

      • phukyouk - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:36 PM

        Really? I wont take away from the MVP debate too much but you are seriously OK with Reyes getting his hit and then taking himself out of the game to lock up the Batting title? I cannot believe that

      • drmonkeyarmy - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:37 PM

        Yeah, I don’t really have a good explanation as to why. Just found it hard to drum up any righteous indignation over it. I don’t really see why people were making such a big deal out of it.

    • bozosforall - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:04 PM

      Phuck Ellsbury. Most overrated player this year.

      • wendell7 - Nov 21, 2011 at 6:12 PM

        uh, …. do you even watch baseball ?

  3. cmutimmah - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:21 PM

    JV1MVP

    Get over it.

    • randygnyc - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:33 PM

      Verlander would look sharp in a Yankee uniform. Ok, Cashman? Make it so…

  4. garryfish - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:23 PM

    I am a Yankee fan, I have to admit, Verlander was the MVP of the American league

    • phukyouk - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:25 PM

      Not by a long shot.. he’s a pitcher… the BEST pitcher of 2011 and he Won that honor. but he was NOT the most VALUABLE player in the AL this year.

      • philliesblow - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:38 PM

        phukyou

      • phukyouk - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:40 PM

        Hey… you keep holding onto those awards and maybe one day you can trade them in for a ring or two

      • gallops99 - Nov 21, 2011 at 5:56 PM

        The Tigers won 95 games in 2011. Verlander himself won 24. The Tigers record with Verlander on the mound was 25-9. Without Verlander the Tigers win 70 games.

        MVP is looked at generally this way:

        Verlander – Tigers do not win the AL Central without him.
        Ellsbury – Sox still don’t make playoffs without him.
        Bautista – Jays still don’t contend without him.
        Granderson – Yankees still win the AL East without him.
        Cabrera – Verlander outshined him, and to me was his biggest competition.
        Cano – Same as Granderson.

        See a pattern? Verlander was the MOST VALUABLE to his team. Without him, the Tigers were playing golf in October instead of playing in the ALCS.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 21, 2011 at 7:24 PM

        The Tigers record with Verlander on the mound was 25-9. Without Verlander the Tigers win 70 games.

        Except you can’t just eliminate a players production and say the team wouldn’t win a single game without him pitching. As I mentioned somewhere in one of these posts, in 3 of his last 12 wins he gave up 4 ER. Porcello couldn’t have done that? In Verlander’s last start, he gave up 5 ER. Scherzer couldn’t have done that?

        If you split the difference, and say any other pitcher would have won half as many games, bam, Tigers still make the playoffs and your theory is bunk.

      • Kevin S. - Nov 21, 2011 at 7:54 PM

        With Detroit’s offense and bullpen, a league-average started would have been roughly expected to go 20-15, making Verlander five wins above average (if we’re going to play this silly game) and seven wins above replacement.

        Oh, what do you know? Justin Verlander, 7.0 fWAR, 8.6 rWAR. It’s almost like this shit works or something.

  5. cur68 - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:24 PM

    Not surprised at all, in any way shape or form, including the Michael Young vote. That said, Bautista was the winner, leaving out Verlander (who is a pitcher and has his own award) and not voting by post season appearance then Ellsbury. Otherwise I can’t seem to get my outrage in gear today. I guess Young got the vote by Evan Grant based on Young’s stellar defence of teammates who haven’t the same pay grade as himself.

    • cmutimmah - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:33 PM

      If he “has his own award” then why don’t they add an award for MVPP (Most valuable position player)? If this was the case, would you argue Verlander shouldn’t have won MVP still?

      If you wouldn’t, then the choice was correct. PS – I’m sure your guy got Silver Slugger or Gold Glove… no worries.

    • kopy - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:36 PM

      I would have voted for Bautista too, but I don’t mind this formula:

      MVP: Best player
      Cy Young: Best Pitcher
      Hank Aaron: Best Hitter
      Gold Glove: Best Hitter

      …see what I did there?

      • phukyouk - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:39 PM

        MVP does not = Best player.. it = Value. Value is not always Best

      • philliesblow - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:39 PM

        Silver Slugger – best fielder?

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:45 PM

        Being the best adds a lot of value.

      • TomTom - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:14 PM

        I see that. What you did there, I see it. DJ6GG!

      • thefalcon123 - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:19 PM

        “MVP does not = Best player.. it = Value. Value is not always Best”

        Call me crazy, but I tend to think there is a fair bit of value in “the best”.

    • cur68 - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:50 PM

      I really should have made some sort of congratulatory statement about Verlander, so a tip of the Blue Jay’s cap to JV. I don’t mind that he won it, but I tend to come down on the side of the argument that pitcher’s have their own award. I kind of like Kopy’s list of awards (while noting that Derek Jeter sews up the GG-shortstop no matter what; just name it the “Jeter” and be done with already!).
      Since we’re making up our own awards, I’m getting on board:
      I want a “Julio Franco Award”: Given to the oldest, best player in MLB who can still dominate guys half their age. So that eliminates Posada right away (damn Yankee bias not creeping into MY made up award, no way!). This season’s winner Arthur Rhodes. Next season; Jamie Moyer. Honorary winner: Nolan Ryan (he DOMINATED Ventura).

  6. bw115 - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:25 PM

    He had one hell of a year

  7. 1943mrmojorisin1971 - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:26 PM

    So as long as Bautista is a Jay I guess he needs to hit .400 with 50+ HRs before he gets serious consideration

    • philliesblow - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:41 PM

      Make George Bell give the 1987 MVP award to Alan Trammell and Bautista can have this year’s.

  8. hansob - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:26 PM

    Do we know who left Verlander off?

    • Detroit Michael - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:37 PM

      If whoever left Verlander off his/her ballot says he would never vote for a pitcher for MVP, then he should be barred from any future awards voting since he has admitted he will not follow the written instructions that accompany the ballot. Differences of opinion are fine and even encouraged but not following the ballot instructions is wrong.

      Congratulations to Justin Verlander (although he was only 3rd on my Internet Baseball Award AL MVP ballot).

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:43 PM

        Unfortunately a few used that exact reasoning for Pedro in ’99/’00. Others also felt that Matsui wasn’t a rookie even though MLB guidelines declare them so, and didn’t vote for him either.

      • hansob - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:12 PM

        One of the guys who left Pedro off his ballot was and is from the Mpls Star Tribune, but he didn’t have a vote this year.

      • sknut - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:49 PM

        “Verlander appeared on only 27 ballots and was omitted by Jim Ingraham of The Herald-News in Ohio, who voted Bautista first. Sheldon Ocker of the Akron Beacon Journal voted Verlander eighth.

        Ingraham doesn’t think pitchers should be eligible for MVP.

        “I’d wrestled with this for a long time. If I was ever going to vote for pitcher for MVP, it would be him this year,” Ingraham said. “He hasn’t appeared in 79 percent of their games, any starting pitcher really doesn’t appear in 79 percent of his team’s games in a year.

        “Would you vote for an NFL quarterback for MVP if he only appeared in three of his team’s 16 games, which would 21 percent? So that’s part of it. Another part of it is I think they’re apples and oranges. The guys that are in there every day, there’s a grind to a season that a starting pitcher doesn’t, I don’t think, experience the way the everyday position players do playing 150, 160 games.”” http://rangersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/11/justin-verlander-wins-mvp-one.html

        There is no excuse to completely leave him off your ballot, you just don’t know what your doing if you don’t think he didn’t deserve one vote at least.

  9. uyf1950 - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:29 PM

    Certainly he had a fantastic year, one for the record books as a pitcher. Unfortunately I do think that Verlander’s winning the MVP Award will only intensify the debate of whether or not a pitcher should even be eligible for the MVP Award. If pitchers have there own award (Cy Young) shouldn’t position players also have their own award (MVP)? It also brings up the thought that starting pitchers only participate in about 30 to 35 games versus position players 150 to 162 games. Roughly 5X as many games. Food for thought, let the debate continue.

    • phukyouk - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:37 PM

      Prepare for the Plethora of Thumbs Down.

      • indyralph - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:45 PM

        By this logic, Roy Halladay could not be nearly as valuable as Jonny Venters, since Venters pitched in almost 3x as many games.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:38 PM

      one for the record books as a pitcher

      Not even close. He had a good year, but this wasn’t Pedro in ’99/’00, RJ with Ari, etc.

    • Francisco (FC) - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:42 PM

      Considering this award was created in 1931 and the very first winner in the AL was a pitcher by the name of Grove, there’s ample precedent and justification to give a pitcher the award. Clearly the creators of the MVP award did not intend to EXCLUDE pitchers from the MVP.

      It’s called Most Valuable Player, and last I checked, pitchers were baseball players, it’s not MVPP (Most Valuable Position Player). Maybe what should happen is the creation of an equivalent Cy Young type of award for positional players, actually there’s the Hank Aaron award, it’s just not as prestigious and I believe that one only takes into account hitting not fielding.

      I guess my point is that the MVP is OLDER than the Cy Young award, this idea that the MVP should only belong to positional players has no basis in reality other than a desire to exclude pitchers from the award because they A) have their own award and B) don’t hit. Blame MLB for not having a presitgious award similar to the Cy Young for the positional players, don’t punish the pitchers.

      • phukyouk - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:48 PM

        I do not think that anyone is arguing that he is a Player. But to give it to someone that does not participate as much as, say Bautista, seems unfair.

      • uyf1950 - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:05 PM

        Like I said let the debate begin/continue. Just to muddy the water even more about who should or should not be eligible for the MVP Award. There is a train of though, some that would contend that even to be eligible for the MVP Award a players team must make the post season.
        I’m not espousing one view or position over the other. Only expressing legitimate concerns/comments that have been raised in the past and continue to be raised.

      • paperlions - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:53 PM

        Pitchers are only baseball players if they hit. Otherwise, I consider them to be the DF (designated fielder) for the guy that can hit but can’t field.

    • bozosforall - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:13 PM

      Position players do…it’s called the Hank Aaron Award (which should be elevated to the same status as the Cy Young).

  10. ruehlmann - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:30 PM

    Rumor has it that Michael Young initially refused to move from 3rd to 1st on Evan Grant’s MVP ballot…

  11. Nick C - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:31 PM

    Evan Grant is an idiot. Michael Young….seriously? Terrible fielder, doesn’t walk, no power, prima donna, not even most valuable Ranger. Guy should have his vote revoked for making such an obviously homer pick.

    Otherwise, congrats to Verlander. I personally think Ellsbury or Batista were better choices but not a bad choice IMHO.

    • roycethebaseballhack - Nov 21, 2011 at 6:00 PM

      For what it’s worth, Grant is being skewered by about 70% of the readers on his own blog for the vote. If Young had stayed off the field in St. Louis, his odds would have increased.

  12. brownsbraves11 - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:33 PM

    Yeah, this is a sham, but congrats JV.

  13. philliesblow - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:37 PM

    Screw you haters. MVP & Cy Young in the same season. This is Detroit & this is what we do!

    Justin Verlander – 2011
    Willie Hernandez – 1984
    Denny McClain – 1968

    • phukyouk - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:37 PM

      SO everything except winning the WS? cool beans

      • Nick C - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:41 PM

        Detroit did win the WS the previous 2 times this happened.

      • salvomania - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:45 PM

        Actually, the Tigers won the World Series in 1968 and 1984.

      • chrisdtx - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:46 PM

        Please review the 1968 and 1984 WS results. I’m thinking of a Meatloaf song (very unfortunately).

      • lembeck4 - Nov 21, 2011 at 4:57 PM

        Does it make your head hurt being that ignorant? Or is it just everyone around you who ends up with a headache?

        As others have pointed out, the Tigers did in fact win the World Series in 1968 and 1984, they also won it in 1945 when Hal Newhouser (also a pitcher) won the second of his back to back MVP awards.

        Research is easy and good for you, try it sometime.

    • harlemhutch17 - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:42 PM

      RIGHT ON

    • thefalcon123 - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:17 PM

      And 2/3rds of those don’t even rank among the dumbest MVP choices of all time! (I’m looking at you Willie Hernandez).

    • purnellmeagrejr - Nov 22, 2011 at 8:49 AM

      “This is Detroit & this is what we do!” I hate it when people learn to talk from their TVs.

  14. JBerardi - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:40 PM

    If Verlander deserves this MVP, then they should retroactively give Pedro Martinez like four of the things.

    • thefalcon123 - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:58 PM

      The history of the MVP is riddled with terrible, terrible choices. In my lifetime alone, the BBWAA *royally* screwed up in:
      2006 with Justin Morneau
      2002 with Miguel Tejada
      2001 with Ichiro
      1998 with Sosa
      1998 again with Gonzalez
      1996 with Gonzalez again
      1995 with Mo Vaughn
      1992 with Dennis Eckersley
      1987 with Andre Dawson
      1987 with George Bell
      1984 with Willie Hernandez

      And these are just the ones that are so obviously terrible choices that anyone with the slightest knowledge of how baseball works should be able to look back on and say “that’s retarded”. There are at least a half dozen or so more that are merely bad choices.

      • bozosforall - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:10 PM

        Add to that the pick of Pedroia as well.

      • paperlions - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:56 PM

        You forgot Rollins, wasn’t even the MVP of the Phillies middle infield that year.

  15. harlemhutch17 - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:41 PM

    Verlander is the MAN. Congratulations after a fine, fine season. To all you naysayers, sour grapes.

  16. Jonny 5 - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:41 PM

    Mmm kay. Wouldn’t the most valuable player that is also a pitcher in the league where pitchers can’t even hit, also win the prestigious pitching award called the Cy Young? Most valuable pitcher should get it. just sayin…..

    My vote was for Bautista, but congrats Verlander. Your compelling story (media fodder) of the season won you this award. You’re the man.

    • Alex K - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:54 PM

      He won off the narrative. It’s not an awful choice, but I don’t agree with it. My top three go like this:

      Bautista
      Ellsbury
      Verlander

  17. thefalcon123 - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:46 PM

    With Verlander, Bautista, Ellsbury and Cabrera, it was kind of hard to royally f**k this up.

    Nonetheless, Evan Grant tried his best.

    • cur68 - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:56 PM

      Yeah. Michael Young, WTF?

      • drmonkeyarmy - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:58 PM

        Shouldn’t of really surprised anybody though. I knew it was him when I saw the first place vote for Young.

  18. salvomania - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:51 PM

    So neither Fred Lynn nor Ichiro should have won their MVP awards either?

    Because both of them also won the Rookie of the Year award, and since they already had their “own” award, then they should have been taken out of consideration for the MVP.

    Come on, gang, you can disagree as to whether Verlander was more valuable than Ellsbury or Bautista, but he had a hell of a year, was an absolute horse for the entire year, and has every right to be considered for the award, regardless of how he did in the Cy Young voting.

    • thefalcon123 - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:14 PM

      Well, Ichiro shouldn’t of, but for a different reason.

      Other than that, I 100% agree!

  19. hgfrombc2 - Nov 21, 2011 at 2:55 PM

    The “everyday” players have their own award:
    http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/awards/mlb_awards_content.jsp?content=hank_aaron_history

    Everyone arguing that pitchers shouldn’t be considered for MVP don’t seem to grasp what the P stands for. Last I looked, it was Player, so I guess your argument is that pitchers aren’t players?

    Go look up Mattingly’s & Clemens’ numbers from ’86. Now compare Clemens’ with Verlander’ from this year, and compare Mattingly’s to ANYONE’s numbers for this year.
    If Clemens had an MVP season in ’86, then Verlander should’ve won by a lot wider margin.

    • drmonkeyarmy - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:06 PM

      I don’t think it is prudent to compare numbers from different eras. I think the best thing one can do is see how the numbers compare to others of the same season. Luckily, WAR seems to do that for us. Clemens actually had a better year WAR wise in compared to Verlander this season. Furthermore, Mattingly posted a WAR of around 8, similar to Bautista’s WAR of this season. I’m not really sure what your point is.

    • thefalcon123 - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:13 PM

      Seriously? Sammy Sosa won the 1999 Hank Aaron award? That would be the dumbest thing I’d ever heard except I just saw that Aramis Ramirez won the 2008 Hank Aaron award.

    • Alex K - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:16 PM

      I think Wade Boggs has a bigger beef with not being named MVP in 86 than Mattingly.

    • bbgustaf - Nov 21, 2011 at 7:12 PM

      Clemens is a punk!

  20. djdvd - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:05 PM

    Never change, voters.

  21. bozosforall - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:09 PM

    phukyouk – Nov 21, 2011 at 2:39 PM
    MVP does not = Best player.. it = Value. Value is not always Best

    __
    IF that is the case then the MVP should go to the most PRODUCTIVE player…Granderson.

    Batting average is way overrated.

    • thefalcon123 - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:15 PM

      In what universe was Curtis Granderson the most productive player?

      • bozosforall - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:32 PM

        Granderson had 136 RBIs and 119 runs scored, more total than any of the other four “position players” up for the award. Batting average (hitting singles) is way overrated, particularly if they don’t result in RBIs or runs scored IMO.

        For the record, I have no problem with Verlander winning the MVP (and agree with those who compare Verlander’s hitters pitched to ABs for the position players). Verlander did indeed field his position and given that he is positioned in the infield, should be given some credit for that.

      • thefalcon123 - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:46 PM

        Okay, so the MVP goes to the most productive player and production means runs and RBIs, despite being extremely dependent on your team.

        Therefore, here are some Bozosforall MVP award winners (automatically going to player with most combined RBIs and Runs):
        1984: Tony Armas and his 121 OPS+
        2008: Ryan Howard and his 124 OPS+

        Need I go on?

    • normb11 - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:18 PM

      So are RBI’s and Runs.

      • bozosforall - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:33 PM

        Both contribute directly to the score. Hits by themselves do not.

      • normb11 - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:47 PM

        Yes, they sure do.
        They do NOT tell you anything about how good or bad a player Granderson is. They tell you nothing about his skills.
        I can’t believe this debate still goes on.

    • phukyouk - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:18 PM

      Value is a combination of things not just pitching. i mean its common sense. Verlander does one ting great and that’s pitch. he doesn’t hit, fields maybe 5 plays a game. I will no cast my vote for MVP right now but any of the other 3 that came in the top 4 should have won it over Verlander

    • cur68 - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:18 PM

      Well this is going to turn into a demonstration of “Cherry picked stats are cherry picked” in nothing flat….

  22. uyf1950 - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:17 PM

    Going to be interesting how Kershaw fairs in the NL-MVP Voting. Again, I’m not a stats geek but considering he won the pitchers equivalent of the Triple Crown and with the exception of 3 less wins and a few less innings pitched his numbers are NOT significantly different than Verlander’s and in some cases slightly better.

  23. bozosforall - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:20 PM

    Plenty of all-time greats to name a “Most Valuable Position Player” award after (if we don’t want to accept the Hank Aaron Award as such).

    What about a Babe Ruth Award? Or a Willie Mays Award? Plenty of oldtimers we could honor with awards for “Best Hitter”, “Best Fielder”, “Best Position Player”, etc., while reserving the MVP award for the best of those award winners (along with the Cy Young, of course).

    • umrguy42 - Nov 21, 2011 at 4:46 PM

      I have to put in a homer vote for SOME kind of Stan Musial Award.

      • bozosforall - Nov 21, 2011 at 10:07 PM

        Why not? Stan the Man could be the batting title award.

  24. cup0pizza - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:35 PM

    He was the best player in the AL by a mile. Well-deserved. Tomorrow, the best player in the NL by a mile (Kemp) collects his MVP.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 21, 2011 at 4:16 PM

      He was the best player in the AL by a mile. Well-deserved

      How so?

  25. bozosforall - Nov 21, 2011 at 3:35 PM

    Let the hue and cry start up once again from the whiny Boston contingent. Great to see things are back to normal again.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

This was 'the perfect baseball game'
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. S. Kazmir (5116)
  2. G. Springer (3635)
  3. K. Uehara (3372)
  4. M. Machado (3121)
  5. D. Pedroia (2880)
  1. J. Chavez (2701)
  2. H. Ramirez (2682)
  3. J. Reyes (2645)
  4. T. Walker (2591)
  5. C. Granderson (2462)