MLB 2011 season

Equality 7-2521 wrote: rushfan4 wrote:  Being good offensively at an offensively scarce position isn't really an argument.  Park effects and strength of schedule are voodoo math so I am not quite sure what that is referring too.  Obviously, Fenway Park is going to add some serious padding to a player's offensive numbers just like Yankee Stadium.  The big bad AL East turned out to be not so big and bad this year.  I believe that the AL Central posted a winning record versus the AL East this year.  (I didn't fact check this I just seem to remember reading this during the season).  As I said in my post above Ellsbury finished 5th or 6th in each of the triple crown batting categories and apparently this makes me an idiot.  And as I also said, as stupid as the argument may be, the Red Sox were favored to win the World Series and they did not make the playoffs.  Maybe it is a shame that this comes into play, but again, how valuable to your team could you really have been if they didn't even make the playoffs, especially if on paper your team was already handed the championship trophy.  I do feel stupid trying to discount Ellsbury's season, because he did have a great season and quite frankly I did expect him to win it and wouldn't have been surprised if he did win it.  What I take offense too, is you calling it a disgrace that Verlander won it.  Newt Gingrich being the front-running Republican is a disgrace.  Verlander winning the MVP is not.    So putting up DH worthy numbers at a traditionally below average defensive position means nothing? That's pretty irrational. Lol vodoo math? You can google it. Have fun learning. Your argument makes absolutely no sense. Really. My head is exploding. Say I contribute 40 wins to my team. My team is the Astros and it only wins 40 games so we will make the playoffs. You contribute 10 wins to your team, which is the Tigers, allowing you to win your division. How was the Tiger's player more valuable? He played on a better team. Or say Player A's team wins 88 games and Player B's team wins 88 games. Player A and Player B are indistinguishable. If Player's A team is in the AL East and doesn't make the playoffs, and Player's B team is in the NL West and makes the playoffs, you think player A is better? How? I stated my case which I feel is pretty logical. Pitchers shouldn't win the award. If they do win, they should have at least been worthy of it. What's the difference between CC's numbers and Verlander's? Tell me.

So if I understand this correctly Ellsbury should have won the MVP because Austin Jackson sucks and CC Sabathia is good?

@MasterMofo

You can throw Halladay's numbers in there too if you would like. They're also very similar (superior).

Catcher10 wrote: This whole discussion is absolutely DUMB!!! Calling the AL MVP choice a disgrace makes zero sense....Who did he disgrace??   Also MVP = Most Valuable Player..of the regular season. That is what the award stands for...."Player" can be anyone on the team. There are other awards given for performance, LCS MVP and WS MVP. Slugger Award, Gold Glove even Comeback Player as well as Cy Young.   Clearly Verlander was theee Most Valuable Player of the regular season..regardless of whether the team made it to the WS or not, so it makes very good sense for him to also have been included as the Cy Young and vice/versa if we were arguing the Cy Young choice. Its logical that his name should have been included in both.   I have been playing baseball all my life...and still do. And more times than not, a pitcher has been named the MVP on a lot of teams I have played on in high school, jr college and adult leagues.......And as a catcher I understand why they are chosen.   What is more stupid and a disgrace is to not consider all members of a baseball team for the award of MVP.

Then get rid of the Cy Young.

I was a pitcher from little league through high school and I still don't think a pitcher should win the MVP. Yeah, pitchers can be really important, but there's an award to specifically recognize pitchers. The Cy Young is the second biggest award in baseball and it's exclusively for pitchers. Position players need an award like that for themselves and it ought to be the MVP.

rushfan4 wrote:  Verlander had a historical career year this season and did win the triple crown in pitching this year.  None of the aforementioned players won the triple crown in hitting.  Cabrera won the batting title, Bautista the home run title and Granderson the RBI title.

People keep repeating how historical a season Verlander had, but there's a problem with that...:
Clayton Kershaw stats:
21-5, 2.28 ERA, 248 K's, 0.97 WHIP

Justin Verlander Stats:
24-5, 2.40 ERA, 250 K's, 0.92 WHIP

Verlander wasn't really any better than Clayton Kershaw this year. He edged him out in wins (which is a team stat, really) and WHIP while Kershaw had a better ERA. Kershaw also had a better K/BB ratio. If Verlander's season was REALLY that historic, how come Kershaw isn't getting the same accolades? Because ESPN and MLB network only want to talk about Verlander because of his no hitter escapades early in the season.

Catcher10 wrote: I would say...mehh A pitcher will NEVER win the Slugger Award, Gold Glove, Batting Title, Hank Aaron or some of the others like RBI, SB.... I bet you more players on a team played the position of pitcher at one time or another while in Little League, Pony Baseball, HS, and even college....but somewhere down the line were moved to another position.   If the other players want to train like a pitcher to throw 98MPH and make a ball defy gravity and still hit an ever smaller strike zone from 60'-6" away.....go for it!

Actually, a pitcher wins a silver slugger every single season and two pitchers win a Gold Glove award every season...

rushfan4 wrote:  Being good offensively at an offensively scarce position isn't really an argument.  Park effects and strength of schedule are voodoo math so I am not quite sure what that is referring too.  Obviously, Fenway Park is going to add some serious padding to a player's offensive numbers just like Yankee Stadium.  The big bad AL East turned out to be not so big and bad this year.  I believe that the AL Central posted a winning record versus the AL East this year.  (I didn't fact check this I just seem to remember reading this during the season).  As I said in my post above Ellsbury finished 5th or 6th in each of the triple crown batting categories and apparently this makes me an idiot.  And as I also said, as stupid as the argument may be, the Red Sox were favored to win the World Series and they did not make the playoffs.  Maybe it is a shame that this comes into play, but again, how valuable to your team could you really have been if they didn't even make the playoffs, especially if on paper your team was already handed the championship trophy.  I do feel stupid trying to discount Ellsbury's season, because he did have a great season and quite frankly I did expect him to win it and wouldn't have been surprised if he did win it.  What I take offense too, is you calling it a disgrace that Verlander won it.  Newt Gingrich being the front-running Republican is a disgrace.  Verlander winning the MVP is not.

So putting up DH worthy numbers at a traditionally below average defensive position means nothing? That's pretty irrational.

Lol vodoo math? You can google it. Have fun learning.

Your argument makes absolutely no sense. Really. My head is exploding. Say I contribute 40 wins to my team. My team is the Astros and it only wins 40 games so we will make the playoffs. You contribute 10 wins to your team, which is the Tigers, allowing you to win your division. How was the Tiger's player more valuable? He played on a better team.

Or say Player A's team wins 88 games and Player B's team wins 88 games. Player A and Player B are indistinguishable. If Player's A team is in the AL East and doesn't make the playoffs, and Player's B team is in the NL West and makes the playoffs, you think player A is better? How?

I stated my case which I feel is pretty logical. Pitchers shouldn't win the award. If they do win, they should have at least been worthy of it.

What's the difference between CC's numbers and Verlander's? Tell me.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: rushfan4 wrote:   I wouldn't have been surprised if either of those guys won, and with their numbers they were deserving, but again to say that Verlander's winning it is a disgrace is just plain idiotic.   I find the argument you just made to be pretty idiotic. You honestly said that he won the triple crown in pitching, but no one won the triple crown in hitting, and used that as an argument. Please great genius in your own mine please explain to me in your all-knowing wisdom which position player put up such "wow" numbers that he without a doubt was more deserving than Verlander and therefore made the choice of Verlander a "disgrace".  I know that in you are own mind your opinion is the one and only opinion that matters but give me a  break. How detailed do you want it? The short version. Jacoby Ellsbury triple slashed .321/.376/.552, at a CF a.k.a. a offensively scarce position, while playing excellent defense according to both scouts and advanced metrics. Adjusting for park effects and strength of schedule, offensively he was 50% more valuable than an average player. That's striking for a CF. If Verlander is so far and away better than the rest explain this to me. 251 IP, 8.96 K/9, 2.04 BB/9, 0.86 HR/9, 40% GB rate 237 IP, 8.72 K/9, 2.31 BB/9, 0.64 HR/9, 46.6% GB rate Those are some pretty good number. They're also pretty similar. Like very similar. Hard to argue one is really better than the other. Problem is that CC put up the later playing in the AL East in Yankee stadium. If Verlander doesn't even have that much distance between himself and the next best pitcher, how do you call him the clear MVP? If you look at his adjusted ERA, he would be 42% more valuable than the average pitcher. Ellsbury seems to edge him out pretty clearly there.

Being good offensively at an offensively scarce position isn't really an argument.  Park effects and strength of schedule are voodoo math so I am not quite sure what that is referring too.  Obviously, Fenway Park is going to add some serious padding to a player's offensive numbers just like Yankee Stadium.  The big bad AL East turned out to be not so big and bad this year.  I believe that the AL Central posted a winning record versus the AL East this year.  (I didn't fact check this I just seem to remember reading this during the season).  As I said in my post above Ellsbury finished 5th or 6th in each of the triple crown batting categories and apparently this makes me an idiot.  And as I also said, as stupid as the argument may be, the Red Sox were favored to win the World Series and they did not make the playoffs.  Maybe it is a shame that this comes into play, but again, how valuable to your team could you really have been if they didn't even make the playoffs, especially if on paper your team was already handed the championship trophy.  I do feel stupid trying to discount Ellsbury's season, because he did have a great season and quite frankly I did expect him to win it and wouldn't have been surprised if he did win it.  What I take offense too, is you calling it a disgrace that Verlander won it.  Newt Gingrich being the front-running Republican is a disgrace.  Verlander winning the MVP is not.   

Padraic wrote: Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree folks.  Enjoy your holiday.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: rushfan4 wrote:   I wouldn't have been surprised if either of those guys won, and with their numbers they were deserving, but again to say that Verlander's winning it is a disgrace is just plain idiotic.   I find the argument you just made to be pretty idiotic. You honestly said that he won the triple crown in pitching, but no one won the triple crown in hitting, and used that as an argument.

Please great genius in your own mine please explain to me in your all-knowing wisdom which position player put up such "wow" numbers that he without a doubt was more deserving than Verlander and therefore made the choice of Verlander a "disgrace".  I know that in you are own mind your opinion is the one and only opinion that matters but give me a  break.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Catcher10 wrote:   Clearly Verlander was theee Most Valuable Player of the regular season. No it's not clear. Actually, I think it's pretty clear that he wasn't.

Catcher10 wrote:   Clearly Verlander was theee Most Valuable Player of the regular season.

No it's not clear. Actually, I think it's pretty clear that he wasn't.

Padraic wrote: Catcher10 wrote: This whole discussion is absolutely DUMB!!! Calling the AL MVP choice a disgrace makes zero sense....Who did he disgrace??   Also MVP = Most Valuable Player..of the regular season. That is what the award stands for...."Player" can be anyone on the team. There are other awards given for performance, LCS MVP and WS MVP. Slugger Award, Gold Glove even Comeback Player as well as Cy Young.   Clearly Verlander was theee Most Valuable Player of the regular season..regardless of whether the team made it to the WS or not, so it makes very good sense for him to also have been included as the Cy Young and vice/versa if we were arguing the Cy Young choice. Its logical that his name should have been included in both.   I have been playing baseball all my life...and still do. And more times than not, a pitcher has been named the MVP on a lot of teams I have played on in high school, jr college and adult leagues.......And as a catcher I understand why they are chosen.   What is more stupid and a disgrace is to not consider all members of a baseball team for the award of MVP. What would you say if I wrote the following? "What is more stupid and a disgrace is to not consider all members of a baseball team for the Cy Young award."

I would say...mehh