MLB 2011 season

rushfan4 wrote: Irrelevant stat:  Head to head. Ellsbury went 1 for 7 with 1 single, 1 walk, 1 SO and 0 RBIs head to head against Verlander.

You know one time a flipped a coin 7 times and it came up heads only once!! I guess the coin has been tampered with.

rushfan4 wrote: Irrelevant stat:  Head to head. Ellsbury went 1 for 7 with 1 single, 1 walk, 1 SO and 0 RBIs head to head against Verlander.

TheMasterMofo wrote: 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.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: @MasterMofo You can throw Halladay's numbers in there too if you would like. They're also very similar (superior).

Oh, I know. Halladay, Cliff Lee, and Jered Weaver all had ridiculous seasons, too. Just more proof that Verlander has been massively overhyped the entire season. Yeah, he had a GREAT season. Nobody's going to deny that... But historic? Not really.

rushfan4 wrote: Not to discount Kershaw's season, but there is the little factor of having to face a DH in the American League versus facing the pitcher in the National League that has to be taken into account when comparing NL versus AL stats.

That's definitely true, but that doesn't change the fact that if Verlander's season was truly "historic", Kershaw's should have been, too. They had basically identically good stats, and while the DH does make a slight difference, it doesn't make enough of a difference for the disparity between the accolades that Verlander is getting versus the accolades that Kershaw is getting. Kershaw's Cy Young wasn't even unanimous despite him having the pitching triple crown as well.

Clayton Kershaw is only 23!  I don't think he deserved MVP and I am a Dodger fan but I think Kemp did even if the team did not make the playoffs.  Considering everything surrounding the team and the types of players they had it is remarkable they finished third and above .500.  Kemp didn't have a guy 4th runner up in the MVP voting hitting behind him either. Still Braun is not undeserving and congrats to him. 

rushfan4 wrote:   I can't say. The only time that I saw him pitch he threw a 2-hit complete game shutout against the Tigers and he was damn impressive.  I suspect because Halladay and Lee both had great seasons and are both prior winners and better known and Kershaw pitches for the Dodgers, whose ownership mess is kind of an embarassment might have something to do with it.  There is almost always an East Coast bias when it comes to these votes.

Yeah, the whole East Coast bias thing sucks... I don't think a pitcher should be penalized for how good his team is when it comes to Cy Young voting, though.

Garion81 wrote: Clayton Kershaw is only 23!  I don't think he deserved MVP and I am a Dodger fan but I think Kemp did even if the team did not make the playoffs.  Considering everything surrounding the team and the types of players they had it is remarkable they finished third and above .500.  Kemp didn't have a guy 4th runner up in the MVP voting hitting behind him either. Still Braun is not undeserving and congrats to him.     There have only been a few pitchers that have won the MVP. When they do you have to ask as you would any player if you put another pitcher or player on that team how would that team have finished?

Yeah I hate the Dodgers, but I'm with you 100%... Kemp deserved the NL MVP and Kershaw is amazing.
When you think at how Kemp literally had NOTHING, it's really ridiculous that he didn't win the MVP. I'll state again that the Dodgers only had three other guys with more than 5 HR's this season, and none with more than 16. None of their other regular starters hit .300 and only three others hit over .275.

Catcher10 wrote: You said it yourself right there..Pitchers are very important to all games......They are the QB of the MLB, they take just as much flack as anyone, and can affect the outcome of a game more than anyone, good or bad. Texas Rangers for years proved that......you can score 12 runs but if you have krappy pitching then you will lose 13-12...You have to wonder if back then if Texas had any pitching half the caliber of a Verlander how many WS they would have competed for?   I'm sorry a pitcher is a position player, matter of fact on the score card he is position #1.

I see that you conveniently ignored the whole point of Kershaw being every bit as dominant and good as Verlander this season, but that's OK. And yeah, pitchers are important. That's why they have the Cy Young award!
And the Rangers had several pitchers of very high caliber this year, which, when combined with their ridiculous offense, is why they won their division. C.J. Wilson was lights out all season long and Alexi Ogando and Matt Harrison were lights out for about half a season each while being decent in the other half.
Great pitching can win games, but so can great offense. You have to have a little of both, because it doesn't matter how well you pitch, if your offense doesn't score any runs, you won't win any games. Just ask 2005 Roger Clemens.

And pitchers are not defined as position players in the game of baseball.

Catcher10 wrote: TheMasterMofo wrote: And pitchers are not defined as position players in the game of baseball.   That makes no sense...so what is your definition of a pitcher then?  The most celebrated position in baseball history is the guy who stands on the mound and does his thing.....And next to catching is one of the most dangerous positions in baseball. Lets see he throws a ball and sometimes it is hit right back at him at over 100MPH and he has to play his position not only to defend himself but to make a less than split second reaction and get his glove up....ohh and usually they have just barely finished their delivery.....What other position in baseball has this little time of reaction?? Tell me again they are not a position player....please enlighten me.

It doesn't matter what my definition is... BASEBALL's definition is that a position player is anyone but the pitcher. It's easier to say than "Guys that don't pitch". It's not me telling you that, it's the last 150 years of baseball telling everyone that. It's just the term used.

I'd argue that 3rd base is equally as dangerous as pitcher because 3rd base plays in shallow - not quite as close to the plate as a pitcher, of course - and has to deal with all the huge power hitters pulling the hell out of the ball at them.

Again, I pitched in little league and in high school. You don't have to tell me what pitchers go through. I also caught whenever our main catcher needed a break, though, and I can tell you that catching is a million times rougher than pitching. No matter what the second most demanding position is, it's a very distant second to catching.

That is my interpretation of what your reasoning is.  Deal with it how you well.

manofmystery wrote: Anyone think Pujols will take his talents to south beach?

Their current offer isn't enough money, but I wouldn't be surprised if they upped it, and with La Russa gone in St. Louis Pujols will be less likely to stay...

If I had to bet, I wouldn't bet on it happening, but I think there's a decent chance that they do it and try to trade Gaby Sanchez for a decent starting pitcher.