I have no problem with this Click Here (espn.go.com), although there were some real screwy ballots out there (Michael Young got a first place vote?). I would listen to a case for Ellsbury, but the Red Sox don't make the playoffs with or without him.
So many stupid things about this voting. David Robertson got a vote?! Michael Young got a first-place vote?! Jose Bautista (my pick) and Jacoby Ellsbury both received lots of votes outside of the top three?!
I'm of the mind that a pitcher shouldn't win the MVP unless he has a truly legendary season. Verlander had one of the ten best pitching seasons of the last decade, but not the all-time knockout performance everyone has convinced themselves he delivered.
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." --- Bart Giamatti, on baseball
I don't have a problem with Michael Young getting a first place vote. He was the tied leader in hits, finished third in batting average, and was in the top 10 in a couple of other batting categories. Plus, as stacked as Texas batting lineup was, he was most likely their most consistent hitter, what with Kinser, Cruz, Beltre, and Hamilton all having slumps and/or injuries at some point during the season. Granted, I would have voted Verlander no matter what but I'm just saying, it wasn't as bad as David Robertson getting a vote. If anything, I have a much bigger problem with voters not voting players for the Hall of Fame because of pettiness and other jealousy issues. The most obvious one I can remember was when that Arizona writer refused to vote for Ricky Henderson and gave some of the most BS 'he's overrated ' excuses as a reasoning.
I agree with It's False that if not for the collapse, Ellsbury would have won it even though I thought Verlander deserved it more. With Ellsbury, yes he had a great, MVP-type season. However, until they fell apart in September, you could also say the same for the most part for several of his teammates (Gonzalez, Pedoria, even Ortiz).
Originally posted by Big Bad I'm of the mind that a pitcher shouldn't win the MVP unless he has a truly legendary season. Verlander had one of the ten best pitching seasons of the last decade, but not the all-time knockout performance everyone has convinced themselves he delivered.
I'm of the mind that the guy who has the best season and helps his team the most should win regardless of what position he plays. (I've always thought that Mariano Rivera should have won as a set-up reliever in 1996, and I've noticed that more people seem to be coming around to my way of thinking on that.) And I think Verlander was that guy this year.
I think there are a certain number of people who are not going to vote for a pitcher for the top spot, so it helped that there was no clear best hitter. (Of course if someone had relly had an awesome offensive season Verlander might not have been the best anyway--but I'm saying that if, say, Bautista had been exactly as good but the other top hitters weren't as good, Bautista might have won.) Anyway, I'm pleased with the outcome.
YOUR (and mine...sigh...) Baltimore Orioles in a matter of minutes will begin their victorious 2002 campaign by thrashing the NY Yankees.
The secret to their impending success, you ask? Playing "small ball"?