Verlander deserves MVP

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    Most Valuab;e "PLAYER".

    Are pitchers not players? 

    Can't hitters win 2 awards too?

    Hank Aaron and MVP, right?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Medic87. Show Medic87's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

     Can't hitters win 2 awards too?
    yeah, they can win Gold glove and silver slugger too.  So.............what's your  point. 
     Hank Aaron award = best hitter, batting stats only. that is all that is voted on by the FANS and Media,  fans dont get to vote for MVP, this award just started in 1999 and was designed for the fans to have an input.

    MVP =  everything should be considered,  Batting, fielding, attitude, leader on the team, on AND off the field behavior, represents the team, etc, etc. 

    Are pitchers not players?  
    do they hit? you have to do it ALL, that why DH will never win, they dont have to field,  just like Pitchers dont have to bat.( minimal at bats in NL understood and during interleague)  and if you say "that counts" they bat...they dont bat well.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    Can't hitters win 2 awards too? 
    yeah, they can win Gold glove and silver slugger too.  So.............what's your  point. 

    I thought it was an obvious response to those who were saying pitchers should not win the MVP because they have their own award: Cy young.

     Hank Aaron award = best hitter, batting stats only. that is all that is voted on by the FANS and Media,  fans dont get to vote for MVP, this award just started in 1999 and was designed for the fans to have an input.

    There are also Silver Slugger Awards, so really, an argument could be made that positional players have a chance to win 4 awards (MVP, Hank aaaron, Silver Slugger, and Gold Glove) while pitchers only have 2.

    MVP =  everything should be considered,  Batting, fielding, attitude, leader on the team, on AND off the field behavior, represents the team, etc, etc.  

    So does pitching...

    Are pitchers not players?   
    do they hit? you have to do it ALL, that why DH will never win, they dont have to field,  just like Pitchers dont have to bat.( minimal at bats in NL understood and during interleague)  and if you say "that counts" they bat...they dont bat well.

    Do batters pitch? They 'have to do all", right?

    MVP should and is open to all players, but has been heavily weighted towards hitters. Verlander dominated his position and the league. Bautista and Ellsbury did as well, but not by as much, and they did not lead their team to the playoffs--another factor used by voters- right or wrong.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP:
    Can't hitters win 2 awards too?  yeah, they can win Gold glove and silver slugger too.  So.............what's your  point.  I thought it was an obvious response to those who were saying pitchers should not win the MVP because they have their own award: Cy young.  Hank Aaron award = best hitter, batting stats only. that is all that is voted on by the FANS and Media,  fans dont get to vote for MVP, this award just started in 1999 and was designed for the fans to have an input. There are also Silver Slugger Awards, so really, an argument could be made that positional players have a chance to win 4 awards (MVP, Hank aaaron, Silver Slugger, and Gold Glove) while pitchers only have 2. MVP =  everything should be considered,  Batting, fielding, attitude, leader on the team, on AND off the field behavior, represents the team, etc, etc.   So does pitching... Are pitchers not players?    do they hit? you have to do it ALL, that why DH will never win, they dont have to field,  just like Pitchers dont have to bat.( minimal at bats in NL understood and during interleague)  and if you say "that counts" they bat...they dont bat well. Do batters pitch? They 'have to do all", right? MVP should and is open to all players, but has been heavily weighted towards hitters. Verlander dominated his position and the league. Bautista and Ellsbury did as well, but not by as much, and they did not lead their team to the playoffs--another factor used by voters- right or wrong.
    Posted by moonslav59


    I still contend that pitchers need both offensive and defensive help to succeed.
    As long as there is a CY award, the MVP should not include pitchers.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP:
    Most Valuab;e "PLAYER". Are pitchers not players?  Can't hitters win 2 awards too? Hank Aaron and MVP, right?
    Posted by moonslav59

    The truth is that the " Hank Aaron  Award " is not considered to be on the same level of prestige as the " Cy Young ."  Maybe it should be , but it simply is not.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    Don't hitters need not great fielding to get more hits? Don't hitters need to face some God-awful pitching to pad their stats? 

    To me, it is very simple: we have an award for best pitcher, best hitter, best hitter by position, and best fielder. The MVP is the award given to the best of the best. Batters and Pitchers and fielders are all "players", and MVP rewards the best and most dominating player.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    OK if a pitcher can win an MVP for playing well in 34 games then I propose that if a hitter mashes every potential Cy young award winner then he should be eligible for winning that award. Seriously there is no way Justin Verlander or any other pitcher deserves to be considered for the MVP award. I know the nit wit writers didn't want to give it to jake but there were other candidates who performed extremely well for more than 34 games!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a bunch of dufuses!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP:
    OK if a pitcher can win an MVP for playing well in 34 games then I propose that if a hitter mashes every potential Cy young award winner then he should be eligible for winning that award. Seriously there is no way Justin Verlander or any other pitcher deserves to be considered for the MVP award. I know the nit wit writers didn't want to give it to jake but there were other candidates who performed extremely well for more than 34 games!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a bunch of dufuses!
    Posted by sportsbozo1

    Does a batter get 27-40 PAs in a game? Starting pitchers get more "PAs" over a full season than hitters. Just becuase they are bunched in 30-34 games, does not make them less important than those spread over 150-162 games.

    When it's the 7th game of the WS, who do you bet on? The starting CF'er or the starting pitcher? I know my answer.

    If we could pick up one player for 2012, would you rather have verlander or Bautista? (Assuming 1 year contract at same cost) I know my answer.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    Any doubts I might have had were removed by the fact that the voting wasn't close.  Generally, I prefer position players to get it, but every so often a pitcher deserves MVP. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    Verlander deserved it because he was such a difference-maker.  The Tigers were 25-9 in his starts, and that was with run support of 4.73 per game, which was only a little above average.

    Also because Verlander threw 251 high-quality innings, his performance had ripple benefits for the rest of the staff.  He gave relievers the night off on many occasions, making them available for the next game.

    Anyone who followed the Sox this year saw how not having any starters going deep in games will catch up to the whole team.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    As far as DH's having no chance, Ortiz finished in the top 5 in MVP voting 5 years in a row, coming 2nd in 2005.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP:
    Verlander deserved it because he was such a difference-maker.  The Tigers were 25-9 in his starts, and that was with run support of 4.73 per game, which was only a little above average. Also because Verlander threw 251 high-quality innings, his performance had ripple benefits for the rest of the staff.  He gave relievers the night off on many occasions, making them available for the next game. Anyone who followed the Sox this year saw how not having any starters going deep in games will catch up to the whole team.
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut


    That means an average replacement might be 18-16, and the Tigers only win their division by 8 games instead of 15.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP:
    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP : That means an average replacement might be 18-16, and the Tigers only win their division by 8 games instead of 15.
    Posted by slomag


    ...and if Jacoby hits 15 less HRs we might finish 6 games out instead of 1.


     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP:
    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP : That means an average replacement might be 18-16, and the Tigers only win their division by 8 games instead of 15.
    Posted by slomag


    That's an interesting take you have on MVP.  You seem to be saying that a guy who was 3 wins above replacement on a team that won their division by 2 games was more valuable than a guy who was 8 games above replacement on a team that won by 10.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from DeweyCBoston. Show DeweyCBoston's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    Re: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO He Didnt!
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP:

    @ Kimsaysthis "Defensive players only have certain balls that are hit to them in any given game, so they're really not part of every moment of the games they're in." That is an incredibly ignorant statement.  Don't even know where to begin... "I wonder if any catcher was ever voted MVP. I think there were years where Varitek could have been part of that discussion." Uhhh... Beavis?  Seriously?  And I love Tek but Christ almighty... "Preventing homeruns -- or even hits -- from the opposing team is just as important, especially at a critical moment in the game. IMO" This is the equivalent of stating, "Defense is, uh, like good. IMO."  I'm sorry, I'm normally not a negative nelly but you really, really just made Alfred E. Newman look intelligent.  Seriously intelligent.  Steven Hawkings intelligent. For the record I think a vote for Verlander is misplaced in the MVP competition.  He had a superlative year, but his impact in solid, tangibles alone (innings played, games appeared in, errors, runs scored, runs prevented, the list goes on and on) is grossly over-valued against an every day, every play, "affecting the play of the game even when the ball is not hit to you" player.  I'm completely baffled by the Verlander crowd and even more so when they use statistics to prove their point, statistics that actually undermine their argument by illustrating how much less-impactful he was to his team than any of the other position players were to theirs.
    Posted by cglassanos


    Yes, of course you mean they are in (all?) the games, so they're involved in all the plays. Whatever. If you want to call standing on the field "involved". I find a pitcher having to throw all the pitches to batters while someone is standing on the field, pretty much makes up for the fact they're not in every game. FTR my comment about preventing hits and runs was in regard to calling pitches, something I don't think many people think about. But I'm sure that's complete nonsense, so I'm with you.

    Thank you, btw. To think, I've been posting on this board for a while without realizing how stupid I actually am. I am flattered that your one post or so a month was directed at me. However, the fact that you actually want to discuss something with me after telling me what a moron I am, kinda puts you in the same category.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP:
    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP : Thurman Munson(76'), Pudge Rodriguez(99'), Joe Mauer(09') 
    Posted by jete02fan


    Thanks, Jete. Probably should have looked that up. '09 even. Yikes! But seeing Joe Mauer's name, I wonder how many were given because of their offense.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP:
    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP : Ellsbury relied on himself .Verlander relied on the whole team. Unless of course he strikes everyone out but then again  it's with the catchers help.
    Posted by donrd4


    I have nothing but great things to say about Ellsbury and the incredible season he had. I think it was a beautiful thing considering how many people were doubting him after he broke his ribs. My vote was not against Ellsbury per se, just that Verlander was unbelievable, and I believe if it wasn't for him, the Tigers don't make the playoffs. I also don't believe they were ever giving it to a player on the Red Sox in 2011. JMO
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    They rarely give it to players from teams that don't make the playoffs. Perhaps that factor is too great for fairness, but I do think it should be a consideration.

    Verlander was clearly the most dominating PLAYER at his position. He basically won the triple crown of pitching, but just because he won another award, some think that should be a disqualifier. Just because he gets all his "PAs" and then some every 5 days instead of every day, some want him disqualified. Pitchers are players too. When a pitcher has an amzing year like Verlander just did, he should be rewarded with the top prize: MVP.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from saintJ. Show saintJ's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP:
      Can't hitters win 2 awards too? yeah, they can win Gold glove and silver slugger too.  So.............what's your  point.   Hank Aaron award = best hitter, batting stats only. that is all that is voted on by the FANS and Media,  fans dont get to vote for MVP, this award just started in 1999 and was designed for the fans to have an input. MVP =  everything should be considered,  Batting, fielding, attitude, leader on the team, on AND off the field behavior, represents the team, etc, etc.  Are pitchers not players?   do they hit? you have to do it ALL, that why DH will never win, they dont have to field,  just like Pitchers dont have to bat.( minimal at bats in NL understood and during interleague)  and if you say "that counts" they bat...they dont bat well.
    Posted by Medic87


    Pitchers can also win the gold glove.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP:
    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP : ...and if Jacoby hits 15 less HRs we might finish 6 games out instead of 1.
    Posted by moonslav59


    Ultimately, does it matter how far back in third place we finished?  I made the point on the other thread - nobody is arguing that Mike Napoli should have won the WS MVP.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from susan250. Show susan250's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP:
    As far as DH's having no chance, Ortiz finished in the top 5 in MVP voting 5 years in a row, coming 2nd in 2005.
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut


    They need to have a separate award for DH.  This is the only way that an outstanding DH who was a contributing factor to the teams success will ever receive the recognition they deserve.  Ortiz probably deserved the MVP in 2005.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP:
    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP : That's an interesting take you have on MVP.  You seem to be saying that a guy who was 3 wins above replacement on a team that won their division by 2 games was more valuable than a guy who was 8 games above replacement on a team that won by 10.
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut


    I think that's true if you care about the meaning of valuable.  A lot of voters don't - they just vote for the best player or the best player on a playoff team.  Verlander has no more say where his team finishes than Jose Bautista, but Bautista is disqualified because his team finished 10 games out of playoff contention.  Well, Verlander's team was 15 games on the other side, so shouldn't his contribution be considered less valuable?  Ideally, the award goes to a guy without whom the team in question would not make the post-season.

    I would also make the point that WAR is a normalized statistic that does not take into account the strengths and weaknesses of a player's team.  Taken in context, a guy with the contributions of a Ben Zobrist - while he wasn't the offensive force of an Ellsbury or Kemp, could be considered more valuable because he provided the bulk of what little offense the Rays had.  Conversely, Ellsbury's WAR is staggering, but replaced with a league-average player, the Sox still finish 3rd in MLB in runs scored, so that should diminish the 'value' of his performance.  In other words, there were more times when Zobrist affected the outcome of a game (Rays games tended to be closer, lower scoring) than did Ellsbury.  How much closer can you get to the definition of valuable?


     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP:
    Don't hitters need not great fielding to get more hits? Don't hitters need to face some God-awful pitching to pad their stats?  To me, it is very simple: we have an award for best pitcher, best hitter, best hitter by position, and best fielder. The MVP is the award given to the best of the best. Batters and Pitchers and fielders are all "players", and MVP rewards the best and most dominating player.
    Posted by moonslav59


    Really Moon? That came from you? I would have expected a better argument from one of the smarter guys on this forum.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Verlander deserves MVP

    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP:
    In Response to Re: Verlander deserves MVP : I think that's true if you care about the meaning of valuable.  A lot of voters don't - they just vote for the best player or the best player on a playoff team.  Verlander has no more say where his team finishes than Jose Bautista, but Bautista is disqualified because his team finished 10 games out of playoff contention.  Well, Verlander's team was 15 games on the other side, so shouldn't his contribution be considered less valuable?  Ideally, the award goes to a guy without whom the team in question would not make the post-season.
    Posted by slomag


    I have to disagree with the concept you're using.  For one thing it's rare that you can identify just one player as making the difference between making the playoffs and not making the playoffs.  If the team makes the playoffs by one game, there might be a lot of players who qualify.  If they make it by ten games there might not be anybody.  It doesn't really make sense in my opinion.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share