Verlander - 969The Tigers played 162 games - Verlander pitched in 34 of them.
A starting pitcher should never, ever, win the MVP award.
The Tigers played 162 games - Verlander pitched in 34 of them.
The Cy Young award is for the best pitcher - which he clearly was in the AL this year.
i think it's pretty awesome. he probably had the highest WARP of any player in MLB this year. so, yes, he's the most valuable player.
That argument was good at one point in the season, but the Tigers won the Central by 15 games.He and Bautista tied for lead in the AL in WAR. On that alone he's a contender for MVP because even though he appeared in only 34 games he accomplished more in those games than all except one other player in the league. The Sox missed the playoffs with Ellsbury, the Jays missed the playoffs with Bautista and the Yankees likely would have made the playoffs without Granderson. But without Verlander the Tigers were going nowhere, he made a difference and took a team from also-ran to playoffs. If you focus on the V in MVP Verlander clearly had as much value to the Tigers as any player in baseball had to their team.
Verlander - 969
Ellsbury - 732
Bautista - 655
Granderson - 658
Cabrera - 688
Shouldn't be too hard to figure out what those are.
I believe in all the major American sports, awards voting is done at the end of the regular season. Otherwise Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez would have many fewer trophies.cabrera was on fire in the playoffs.
That's regular season numbers, and they don't have anything to do (directly) with how well anyone played.cabrera was on fire in the playoffs.
no one is saying Verlander wasn't great this year, but he only started 34 games - they played 162. Cabrerra was the MVP on that team, Verlander was just the best pitcher.
For all of the "he only played in 35 games" people....Verlander faced on average 35 batters a game. Therefore, in his 35 games, he affected 1,225 plays. A batter who plays ALL 162 games and averages 4 at bats and 4 plays in the field a game affects 1,296 plays..... I say that means they're on equal footing when doing comparisons.
Ding ding ding. Although the numbers are a bit off (look up).I saw this on ESPN which I thought was a good counter-argument:
I saw this on ESPN which I thought was a good counter-argument:
pitchers have cy young awards.
I saw this on ESPN which I thought was a good counter-argument:
that math around Verlander is ridiculous too - does that mean catchers should be MVP's because they 'affect' more plays than the other fielders do too?
Are we going to ignore any defensive ability/plays too since we only want to count at-bats for position players now?
Pedro Martinez had arguably the best season a starting pitcher has EVER had in 1999 - if that wasn't MVP award worthy, this season from Verlander certainly wasn't.
Quite frankly, they need to change the awards - 1 for best pitcher, 1 for best non-pitcher.
You can add putouts to those numbers if you want - guess what, it's comparable. And that's if you don't consider the unquantifiable benefit that an ace gives his team by saving their bullpen every five nights. The argument that an everyday position player has more of an effect than a top-of-the-rotation starter is simply asinine.that math around Verlander is ridiculous too - does that mean catchers should be MVP's because they 'affect' more plays than the other fielders do too?
Are we going to ignore any defensive ability/plays too since we only want to count at-bats for position players now?
Pedro Martinez had arguably the best season a starting pitcher has EVER had in 1999 - if that wasn't MVP award worthy, this season from Verlander certainly wasn't.
Quite frankly, they need to change the awards - 1 for best pitcher, 1 for best non-pitcher.
