Verlander MVP?

[jdeb]

Looks like he has as good a shot as anyone. Granderson or Gonzo are his competition. If JV wins 25, I would say he would be a lock, no?

 

[Monster]

I certainly hope he has a good shot. sub .500 team without him.

 

[hellifino]

thou his numbers are worthy,I think the MVP should go to a everyday player.

 

[thehippo73]

thou his numbers are worthy,I think the MVP should go to a everyday player.

I agree and have heard many sportswriters say they would not vote a pitcher MVP.

 

[jmakula87]

Now while I think that JV should be in the MVP talks, I would still have to say that Bautista would get my vote. I know the Blue Jays aren't going anywhere, but his numbers are just ridiculous, especially compared to the rest of the league.

I also think that if the voters are too stubborn to even consider a pitcher for MVP because they have their own award, then they should change the name of the award. (Yes, I know that isn't ever going to happen.) Hmmm MVPP ---most valuable position player. I just think that it is ignorant to say that you wouldn't ever vote for a pitcher when it is your responsibility to vote for the best player.

While an every day player might deserve the award most times, I don't feel like somebody could say that a pitcher never deserves it.

 

[jmakula87]

Oh, and wasn't calling anybody on here ignorant, but I was just saying that if the right opportunity came up, and I was one the committee, I would at least go through every argument of why each player deserves the award. I am afraid that some of the people on the committee are too stubborn to even do that though (based on what I have hard some of them say).

 

[Mitchrapp]

I wouldn't vote for Bautista. Its not best stats its most valuable player and I'd have a hard time with a guy winning on a 41th place team. I've always been on the fence on whether a pitcher should win but if JV stays on course and wins 23-24 you'd have to at least consider him.

But he's certainly no lock, JV. Not a pitcher.

 

[tomdalton22]

Even Colin Cowherd is saying that JV deserves the MVP. He says that without JV the Tigers would be below .500 and in 3rd place in the weak AL Central. I tend to agree with him.

 

[zoombabyzoom]

Granderson has Teixeira and Gonzo has Ellsbury. All of those four will be in the top 5/6 of the MVP voting. That tells me that none of them by default can win.

 

[lions2011]

14 of his wins have come after Tiger losses.....that's MVP enough for me.

 

[zoombabyzoom]

I can never believe that a MVP can come from NY or Boston. Those teams have multiple MVP candidates plus CY Young candidates. You have Granderson but his numbers are very similar to his own teammate. Only difference is a .30 dip in AVG.

Granderson can not win the MVP with an average below .280 that would be disturbing. He has great performing talent around him in that lineup, a lineup not even built around him.

Teixeira can not win because of the same reasons for Granderson.

Bautista hey he has a better resume than Granderson. He is the sole candidate from that team and has good numbers all around. However his team isn't in playoff contention...

Gonzales - First look he is a lock when looking at his stats. Then you look at Ellsbury and they are almost identical, that means his "value" is split in half.

Ellsbury - He splits value with Gonzales and even though he has SBs and Defense on his side as well as clutch ability.

Verlander - He is a pitcher, having one of the best seasons in memory for a team pulling away in their division. However unlike the 5 above him in this list you take JV away from the Tigers their playoff chances get hurt more than any of the other teams. However, he is a pitcher.

 

[mjsb2]

thou his numbers are worthy,I think the MVP should go to a everyday player.

I agree and have heard many sportswriters say they would not vote a pitcher MVP.

Why?

They may not play everyday, but on the day they do play, they have a far greater impact on the game than position players ever do in any individual game.

Dustin Pedroia leads the majors with 585 PAs.

Well, JV has been on the mound for over 800 PAs.

The award clearly states that it should go to the most value player, whether they be a pitcher or position player.

To automatically eliminate pitchers from the award does nothing but cheapen the award and turn it into a complete joke. Doing so is even worse than not voting for a player because his team didn't make the playoffs.

 

[mjsb2]

Now while I think that JV should be in the MVP talks, I would still have to say that Bautista would get my vote. I know the Blue Jays aren't going anywhere, but his numbers are just ridiculous, especially compared to the rest of the league.

I also think that if the voters are too stubborn to even consider a pitcher for MVP because they have their own award, then they should change the name of the award. (Yes, I know that isn't ever going to happen.) Hmmm MVPP ---most valuable position player. I just think that it is ignorant to say that you wouldn't ever vote for a pitcher when it is your responsibility to vote for the best player.

While an every day player might deserve the award most times, I don't feel like somebody could say that a pitcher never deserves it.

The hitters have their own award too, it's called the Hank Aaron award.

That argument is complete bullshit.

 

[mjsb2]

Mitch[/color]]I wouldn't vote for Bautista. Its not best stats its most valuable player and I'd have a hard time with a guy winning on a 41th place team. I've always been on the fence on whether a pitcher should win but if JV stays on course and wins 23-24 you'd have to at least consider him.

But he's certainly no lock, JV. Not a pitcher.

And having the best stats, being the best player, would of course mean you were the most valuable.

 

[mjsb2]

Oh, and wasn't calling anybody on here ignorant, but I was just saying that if the right opportunity came up, and I was one the committee, I would at least go through every argument of why each player deserves the award. I am afraid that some of the people on the committee are too stubborn to even do that though (based on what I have hard some of them say).

The BBWAA is a joke.

One of the voters isn't even a writer anymore, he just writes cartoons.

 

[deathroh]

I don't understand why everyone frames it as most valuable player to their team, and not just most valuable player. I understand that you're going to get bonus points for being on a mediocre team because you have extra pressure since you're counted on to lead them, while at the same time get knocked for being on such a crappy team that they don't make the playoffs because you're dealing with less pressure, but to me that should just be a small factor, and not the framework of the debate.

 

[mjsb2]

I don't understand why everyone frames it as most valuable player to their team, and not just most valuable player. I understand that you're going to get bonus points for being on a mediocre team because you have extra pressure since you're counted on to lead them, while at the same time get knocked for being on such a crappy team that they don't make the playoffs because you're dealing with less pressure with your team is out of it, but to me that should just be a small factor, and not the framework of the debate.

Don't you get it?

If you're not on a playoff team, you're eliminated from consideration.

But if you're on a playoff team that is very good and loaded with talent, you are also eliminated from consideration.

In summation, in order to win the MVP you have to be a crappy team, but not too crappy of a team.

 

[zoombabyzoom]

I guess it is how you define Valuable. That is the V in the MVP

 

[mjsb2]

Rich what? Richmond![/color]]I guess it is how you define Valuable. That is the V in the MVP

If you provide more wins to your team than another player, you are more valuable.

It is that simple.

 

[deathroh]

Rich what? Richmond![/color]]I guess it is how you define Valuable. That is the V in the MVP

Why let a person's teammates define that value?