- 11/22/2011, 11:29AM ET
HighwayCrossingFrog said 11/22, 11:29 AM
Verlander participated in 34 games..
Thats not even a quarter of 162 games..
I'd rather have ellsbury or curtis granderson..
dudes that gave blood sweat and tears, everyday for 6 months..
This is the worst MVP decision I can recall in a long time..
Pitchers get the cy young..
batters get the MVP..
Thats the way it should be..
Otherwise its just a mind f-u--c--k..
Sabih said 11/22, 07:56 PM
I disagree with your assertion that pitchers should automatically be disqualified from MVP because they have their own award.
Or that they do not play enough.
Verlander played in 34 games but faced 987 batters in those 34 games.
Granderson had 691 plate appearances all year.
That is a big difference. Especially since pitching takes a greater toll on your body than hitting.
I know position players have to go out and field and on the balance, they do spend a a lot of energy but workhorse pitchers like Verlander, Halladay or CC spend almost as much energy in the 35 games they pitch as the position players do in the 160 games they play.
Second, its not about quantity but quality.
And Verlander was all about quality. Triple Crown.
Tigers Win % when Verlander pitched 85%. In games he didn't pitch, it was 52%.
He sounds valuable to me.
His competition was Ellisbury but the collapse of the Sox probably cost him.
Jose Bautista playing on a non-playoff team hurt him.
Granderson had a lot of talent around him.
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia