04/25/24
November 21, 2011
Tigers' Justin Verlander wins AL MVP : Justin Verlander is the American League's Most Valuable Player -- the first starting pitcher to win the award in 25 years. The Detroit Tigers right-hander beat out runner-up Jacoby Ellsbury of Boston and third-place Jose Bautista of Toronto. Verlander received 13 of the 28 first-place votes in the balloting by the Baseball Writers Association of America. He was left off of one voter's ballot. Bautista got five first-place votes. Ellsbury had four.
posted by tommytrump to baseball at 03:49 PM - 34 comments
I am not one of those "pitchers should not win because they have their own award" kind of guys (Pedro definitely should have won in 1999), but I think it probably should have gone to Ellsbury or Bautista, and I suspect it would have had either of their teams made the playoffs.
posted by holden at 05:25 PM on November 21, 2011
Not a fan of this. Guys who have to go out and play every day deserve their award, and this is not meant to take anything away from Verlander.
posted by dyams at 06:11 PM on November 21, 2011
Verlander had an outstanding year. More importantly in this case, his value to his team cannot be overstated.
Can't buy the idea that an every-day position player must get the MVP instead of an every-few-days pitcher. Give the award to the player who is most valuable to his team, position be damned.
posted by roberts at 06:59 PM on November 21, 2011
My useless stat of the day: 3 Tigers pitchers have won the Cy Young since its inception: Denny McLain in 1968, Willie Hernandez in 1984, and Verlander this season. All 3 went on to win the MVP that year, as well...
posted by MeatSaber at 07:20 PM on November 21, 2011
I don't agree. Verlander was great, and deserved the unanimous Cy Young, but he is not more valuable than Bautista, or Ellsbury, or even Cabrera.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 07:30 PM on November 21, 2011
My useless stat of the day: 3 Tigers pitchers have won the Cy Young since its inception: Denny McLain in 1968, Willie Hernandez in 1984, and Verlander this season. All 3 went on to win the MVP that year, as well...
If only he could have grabbed a World Series ring as well, then it'd be a perfect match.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 09:21 PM on November 21, 2011
Verlander had an outstanding year. More importantly in this case, his value to his team cannot be overstated.
Really? I think the fact one of his team mates also got first place votes and finished in 5th place in the voting might mean his value could possibly be overstated. That's without evening mentioning that two OTHER team mates also received votes for MVP.
Jose Bautista, on the other hand, had no other team mates receive votes, and finished second in 1st place votes.
Special attention should be paid to the moron voter from Texas who gave a first place vote to Michael Young, and also listed Jose Bautista in SEVENTH on his ballot.
posted by grum@work at 09:38 PM on November 21, 2011
Can't buy the idea that an every-day position player must get the MVP instead of an every-few-days pitcher. Give the award to the player who is most valuable to his team, position be damned.
Sure, and unless a starting pitcher has an historical season (Pedro 1999, Clemens 1997, or Maddux 1994/95) and there aren't any real comparable position players, a starting pitcher won't be as valuable to his team.
posted by grum@work at 09:45 PM on November 21, 2011
Michael Young finished eighth in MVP voting, so I don't think a first place vote for him is moronic. It's a bit of a homer vote, though.
posted by rcade at 08:03 AM on November 22, 2011
Michael Young finished eighth in MVP voting, so I don't think a first place vote for him is moronic. It's a bit of a homer vote, though.
Michael Young doesn't even finish in 8th place on his own damn team!
Wins Above Replacement (Texas Rangers):
Napoli 5.5
Kinsler 5.4
Beltre 5.2
Wilson 5.0
Harrison 4.0
Hamilton 3.6
Andrus 3.5
Holland 2.7
Young 2.4
Compared to the rest of the American League?
Young finished 48th in Wins Above Replacement among just the position players. There were also 36 pitchers who finished the season with more WAR than Young.
There is no way around it, putting Young on the ballot was ridiculous, and putting in first is simply moronic (homer or not).
posted by grum@work at 08:45 AM on November 22, 2011
When did Wins Above Replacement become the deciding factor in MVP voting?
Young's numbers are comparable to Dustin Pedroia's when he won in 2008. I'm not saying he should have won the MVP vote, but getting a single outlier who put him first does not seem that ridiculous to me. The Rangers won the pennant. Young's numbers and versatility put him in the conversation of why that happened.
The MVP award has vague criteria. I think we encourage the voters to be herd followers by making such a big deal out of unexpected votes.
posted by rcade at 09:15 AM on November 22, 2011
Grant's rationale here. He also writes about it on the Dallas Morning News site, but it's behind a paywall.
posted by rcade at 09:16 AM on November 22, 2011
When did Wins Above Replacement become the deciding factor in MVP voting?
It isn't. It's just a good bellweather for quickly comparing players. If Young had finished 1st or 2nd on his team, or even in the top 10 (20? 30?) in the league, I could probably justify some late ballot votes.
But 48th among position players and outside the top 80 among all AL players?
Come on.
Grant's rationale here. He also writes about it on the Dallas Morning News site, but it's behind a paywall.
I've read Grant's explanation, and it's bunk.
To me he has been the most valuable player, but people don't know the intrinsic value he brings.
Intrinsic?
They see that he's hitting .338 and has 105 RBIs, but they don't see that his 14 games at 2B probably had some impact on Ian Kinsler staying fully healthy for the first time in his career;
I'm guessing that Grant didn't realize that Jose Bautista played 25 games at 3B when the team had a sinkhole at the position until Brett Lawrie arrived.
they don't see that he gave Ron Washington an attractive option at first to try and rest Mitch Moreland, particularly against lefties; They don't know that Derek Holland has met with him after almost every start lately for a critique and that Young and Holland have a special player-pitcher rapport. They don't know that Mike Napoli, who is having a career year, lockers next to Young and has followed him around like a puppy dog.
So Grant gets to apply these intangibles to Young and assumes that he's the only player that has them?
I'm guessing he didn't do any research about the intangibles that Bautista had on the Blue Jays roster (or Verlander had on the Tigers pitching staff).
There are lots of times during the season where Bautista was caught on film talking with Escobar, Lawrie, Snider, Thames and Arencibia about their approach at the plate, right after an AB. Romero and Lind have both mentioned in interviews that Bautista is the "father" of the team, and leads by example with his work ethic and dedication.
Bautista did not, however, complain during spring training about losing his position and then demand a trade. That's the kind of team leadership that only Michael Young can provide.
No, they will see stats. They will see his WAR or his OPS and believe that others are more valuable. I can't see how one player meant more to all facets of his team than Young.
I'm going to assume that Grant did absolutely no research about any of the other players on his ballot. Oh, wait. He does pretty much say that:
posted by grum@work at 10:10 AM on November 22, 2011
Young's numbers are comparable to Dustin Pedroia's when he won in 2008.
If you ignore fielding (Pedroia was the top fielder at his position, while Young was below average at every position he played) and base running (20 SB 1 CS for Pedroia, 6 SB and 2 CS for Young), sure.
I think we encourage the voters to be herd followers by making such a big deal out of unexpected votes.
No, I think we encourage the voters to take it seriously to properly compare the players they are voting on.
This vote seems like a "Look at me! Look at me! Give me page hits!" attention-getter, rather than a serious vote.
posted by grum@work at 10:18 AM on November 22, 2011
If you were ever going to give it to a pitcher, this was certainly the year to do it.
Totally disagree and I'm not the only one.
Can we now retroactively give Pedro Martinez his MVP award?
posted by BornIcon at 10:24 AM on November 22, 2011
Grum's correct that I didn't consider fielding. I don't like to think about Young's fielding.
Bautista did not, however, complain during spring training about losing his position and then demand a trade. That's the kind of team leadership that only Michael Young can provide.
C'mon. You're going to fault Young for a few days of preseason pique over a fourth position change, when he went on to do everything asked of him and help the Rangers repeat as AL champs? There's been no All-Star who has been asked to change positions as many times as Young and done it. A lot of players of his talent would've said no to a single position change.
I take Grant at his word that "it was never my intention to drive traffic or put myself on the national table." If he's been trying to get attention, you wouldn't know it by how he covers DFW sports.
A Rangers blogger asks of Grant's ballot, "How did Evan Grant miss the boat so badly that he cannot even identify the most valuable player on the team that he covers?"
posted by rcade at 10:41 AM on November 22, 2011
After finishing 23-4 with a 2.07 ERA and 313 strikeouts, Martinez got eight first-place votes, but he was also left off a couple of ballots and finished second in the balloting to Ivan Rodriguez, who was probably the league's fourth or fifth best position player.
Martinez certainly deserved it then, but it was given to a position player, and arguably, from the above, not the best in the league.
Thus the argument. Do you give it to a deserving pitcher or instead give it to a position player because he is a position player.
posted by roberts at 10:42 AM on November 22, 2011
You're going to fault Young for a few days of preseason pique over a fourth position change, when he went on to do everything asked of him and help the Rangers repeat as AL champs?
He made it publicly known that he was putting his needs above the needs of the team, and that he was willing to leave his team mates because of it.
When no trade was available, he then became a utility infielder because he wasn't the best player on his team at any of the positions he played.
That definitely sounds like a 1st-place MVP vote right there.
Oh, and maybe we should have guessed that Grant was going to vote Young MVP based on what he said earlier in the year:
"When it's all said and done, there should be a statue of Young at Rangers Ballpark." -- Evan Grant, February 2011
posted by grum@work at 11:04 AM on November 22, 2011
Thus the argument. Do you give it to a deserving pitcher or instead give it to a position player because he is a position player.
It's the MVP award not MVPP (Most Valuable Position player) award. The player that deserves to win the award should, regardless if it's a pitcher or position player.
posted by BornIcon at 11:07 AM on November 22, 2011
Totally disagree and I'm not the only one.
I thought Pedro was jobbed too, but if you feel that way, why shouldn't Verlander have won? They had pretty comparable seasons.
You're going to fault Young for a few days of preseason pique
If we're going to credit him for intangibles, why can't we ding him for negative tangibles? He hasn't been a good player for a few years; he's basically a DH/ 1B except he doesn't have enough pop to justify it.
posted by yerfatma at 11:11 AM on November 22, 2011
When no trade was available, he then became a utility infielder because he wasn't the best player on his team at any of the positions he played. That definitely sounds like a 1st-place MVP vote right there.
Young played 159 out of 162 games -- 69 at DH, 49 at third, 36 at first base, 14 at second and one at short -- and put up great numbers. It's hard to take you seriously when you're shitting on that.
What a player says in the off-season regarding contracts and trades should have no bearing on MVP consideration. It's what happens on the field that counts. You're blasting Grant for his lack of tangible evidence for his vote, but you're relying on equally nebulous considerations when you bring up Young's brief blowup in spring training.
When it became clear in the spring he couldn't be moved, Young apologized to the team for the off-field distraction he'd caused and said he was fully dedicated to the Rangers. He proved it.
posted by rcade at 11:22 AM on November 22, 2011
If we're going to credit him for intangibles, why can't we ding him for negative tangibles? He hasn't been a good player for a few years ...
I'm not crediting him with intangibles. Now he's not even a good player? Sheesh. No point in refuting that one.
posted by rcade at 11:25 AM on November 22, 2011
I thought Pedro was jobbed too, but if you feel that way, why shouldn't Verlander have won?
I agree with you that Verlander rightfully deserved to win the MVP award but your comment was "[i]f you were ever going to give it to a pitcher, this was certainly the year to do it" when 1999 should've been the year that a pitcher won the award as well. Pedro was flat out the best player in baseball that year and was robbed of the MVP award.
posted by BornIcon at 11:30 AM on November 22, 2011
I thought Pedro was jobbed too, but if you feel that way, why shouldn't Verlander have won? They had pretty comparable seasons.
Not all that close when adjusting for the offense and level of competition (offense was down this year compared to 1999). Verlander had an excellent season; Pedro had an historic one.
1999 Pedro -- 23-4, 213.1 IP, 313 SO (13.2 K/9), 37 BB (1.6 BB/9), 0.923 WHIP, 243 ERA+
2011 Verlander -- 24-5, 251 IP, 250 SO (9.0 K/9), 57 BB (2.0 BB/9), 0.920 WHIP, 170 ERA+
Verlander gets a bump because of the extra 40 innings, which are very valuable at that level of performance. But I still think Pedro's 1999 blows Verlander's 2011 out of the water.
posted by holden at 11:46 AM on November 22, 2011
Young played 159 out of 162 games -- 69 at DH, 49 at third, 36 at first base, 14 at second and one at short -- and put up great numbers. It's hard to take you seriously when you're shitting on that..
Not great. Good. Good enough to be the 6th most valuable hitter on his team. Let's not go overboard about his contributions.
I'm not "shitting" on his performance. I'm "shitting" on the idea that he's even remotely deserving of a 1st place MVP vote.
I'm not crediting him with intangibles.
Not you, but Evan Grant sure as hell was giving him credit for his intangibles, and that's the strongest pillar in his "Michael Young - MVP" house of cards.
If you take away that:
they will see stats. They will see his WAR or his OPS and believe that others are more valuable.
Grant is proposing that these "intangibles" make up the Grand-Canyon-esque gap between Young and Bautista/Ellsbury/Granderson/Cabrera/Cano/Gonzalez.
posted by grum@work at 12:15 PM on November 22, 2011
1999 Pedro -- 23-4, 213.1 IP, 313 SO (13.2 K/9), 37 BB (1.6 BB/9), 0.923 WHIP, 243 ERA+
2011 Verlander -- 24-5, 251 IP, 250 SO (9.0 K/9), 57 BB (2.0 BB/9), 0.920 WHIP, 170 ERA+
In order for Pedro Martinez's stats in 1999 (213 IP of 243 ERA+) to be equal to a 1999 version of Verlander (251 IP of 170 ERA+), you would need to have a pitcher throw 37.2 innings of 20.00 ERA baseball (in 1999).
In case you are wondering, no pitcher in history has thrown as badly as that. Ever.
In other words, the difference between Martinez and Verlander is huge. The extra 37.2 innings pitched is meaningless in comparison. Any relief pitcher from probably A- rookie ball and up could fill in the missing innings.
posted by grum@work at 12:33 PM on November 22, 2011
More balloting fun from Evan Grant:
In the 2008 MVP vote (that Pedroia won), he left him off the ballot? Why? Not because he felt he was undeserving, but because it was an error of omission
In the 2006 MVP, Michael Young received one 10th place vote. As you can guess, it came from Evan Grant.
For the 2009 rookie of the year voting Evan Grant had this to say: "I am voting on the AL Rookie of the Year. And here [sic] this Boston, Oakland and all other destinations: I'm planning on voting for Elvis Andrus, a Ranger, first. So deal with it."
posted by grum@work at 01:20 PM on November 22, 2011
Reading Grant's logic for 2008, he calls it an error but then says he was down to either Pedroia or Carlos Pena at the 10th spot. It sounds less like an error than a difference in opinion to me.
It's weird to see him harp on numbers back then and reconcile it with his Young vote today. Dude's a much bigger homer than I realized.
posted by rcade at 01:27 PM on November 22, 2011
Argh, long comment got eaten. To make an attempt to clarify my position: I think Pedro's season was better than Verlander's. What I did not make clear is I thought "this was the year to do it" because 1999 was still the Dark Ages stats-wise. Things have gotten a lot better in the past few years, so that, combined with a season that only rolls around every decade or so, was the time for it to happen. Whatever you think of the conclusion, I'm happy we have something to seriously debate rather than all rolling our eyes about another award given for past performance.
As for Young, mea culpa: he's been better the last couple of years than I remember. However, his value comes entirely from his bat, which doesn't have a ton of pop. He's a defensive hole that Texas is paying $16 million per for two more years. How can he bitch about that?
posted by yerfatma at 04:29 PM on November 22, 2011
I think Micheal Young is overrated in the same way that Ian Kinsler is underrated.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 06:35 PM on November 22, 2011
My son and I were listening to a couple of sports talking heads yesterday while on our way to Foxborough for the Patriots vs KC game. One of them was making the point that Verlander in his 34 games had a greater impact than Ellsbury in his 158 games. The idea is that Verlander faced 969 batters through the season, and each batter faced had an impact on his team's record. Ellsbury had a total of 732 plate appearances (not times at bat, which do not include walks or sacrifices) but times he stood in the batter's box. Even when you add in the 394 total fielding chances (388 PO, 6 A, 1 DP) that Ellsbury had, Ellsbury was involved in only 157 more plays than was Verlander.
Which player thus had the greater contribution to his team? Verlander faced 969 batters, gave up 57 walks, hit 3 batters, and allowed 174 hits. He retired 735 of the 969 batters faced, giving him a success percentage of .785. Ellsbury had an OBP of .376, but his OPS was .928. It looks like a toss-up, but the important thing to consider is that in 34 games Verlander really had nearly as much influence as Ellsbury had in 158. To me that says that denying a vote to a pitcher just because he doesn't play every game has no real statistical basis, and should not be used as an excuse for such.
Michael Young for MVP? YGBSM
posted by Howard_T at 10:23 PM on November 22, 2011
The idea is that Verlander faced 969 batters through the season, and each batter faced had an impact on his team's record. Ellsbury had a total of 732 plate appearances (not times at bat, which do not include walks or sacrifices) but times he stood in the batter's box. Even when you add in the 394 total fielding chances (388 PO, 6 A, 1 DP) that Ellsbury had, Ellsbury was involved in only 157 more plays than was Verlander.
I think Verlander MIGHT have been more valuable than Ellsbury.
However, neither were more valuable than Bautista. :)
posted by grum@work at 12:05 AM on November 23, 2011
The idea is that Verlander faced 969 batters through the season, and each batter faced had an impact on his team's record. Ellsbury had a total of 732 plate appearances (not times at bat, which do not include walks or sacrifices) but times he stood in the batter's box. Even when you add in the 394 total fielding chances (388 PO, 6 A, 1 DP) that Ellsbury had, Ellsbury was involved in only 157 more plays than was Verlander.
Yes, but this belies the reality that while Verlander directly impacted 969 plays, he only had an overall direct impact in 34 games. That is the sum total of wins or losses he could contribute to (outside of the intangible idea of how his innings helped the bullpen - which is only comparable in the modern six-inning starter era). So I'm not certain those numbers tell the story that some are selling.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 07:31 PM on November 25, 2011
If you were ever going to give it to a pitcher, this was certainly the year to do it. Sorry to see Ellsbury miss out on it, but Verlander was incredible.