MLB 2011 Part Two

Off Topic
1021

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Giants just traded Jonathan Sanchez for Melky Cabrera to the Royals.[/quote]

I think it’s a good trade for both sides. Sanchez was great for us in the past, and I was at the stadium when he threw his no hitter, but he is to erratic and seemed to be declining this year instead of improving.

We set out to improve our bats, and this is definitely a step in that direction.

I just hope we sign Reyes or Cespedes (the Cuban guy).[/quote]

Melky has below average defense which won’t bode well in a spacious park like AT&T. They should’ve gotten more for Sanchez in an offseason where CJ Wilson is the headline FA SP IMO.

I haven’t watched Melky much since he left NYY, but from what I remember he wasn’t much more than an extra OF with a plus arm.[/quote]

I think Melky blows. When he was in Atlanta he was a fucking joke. Anybody who takes him better not put alot of stake in his play. He plays when he feels like it and even then it’s not that good.[/quote]

He had a career year last year, I guess there’s a glimmer of hope it works out for the Giants. [/quote]

Just a glimmer. Melky seems to be the kinda guy who’ll turn it on when he’s against the ropes, but get comfortable and lazy when he’s not. The Giants are in desperate need of O, so I guess they need to take their chances.

1022

MLB is closer to finishing a new labor deal.

Among other things, (the deal) will pave the way for realignment of the sport into two 15-team leagues, adding a second wild-card team in each league, spreading interleague play throughout all six months of the regular season and making significant changes to the draft, free agency and the so-called “Competitive Balance Tax.”

I think turning the divisions into two 15 team leagues and adding another wild card team is a terrible idea. What about division rivalries. If there is going to be more interleague play, then why not have both leagues either have DHs or none at all. Also, why not just let more teams into the playoffs to water it down some. Do you know how uninteresting the run to the playoffs would have been this year if there was an extra wildcard team? The epic collapses of Boston and Atlanta wouldn’t have even been big news. They both would have made the playoffs even though they didn’t deserve it with how terrible they played at the end. It’s like they are trying to turn into the NBA.

1023

He already got the Cy Young, now it’s time for Verlander to take home the MVP.

1024

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Giants just traded Jonathan Sanchez for Melky Cabrera to the Royals.[/quote]

I think it’s a good trade for both sides. Sanchez was great for us in the past, and I was at the stadium when he threw his no hitter, but he is to erratic and seemed to be declining this year instead of improving.

We set out to improve our bats, and this is definitely a step in that direction.

I just hope we sign Reyes or Cespedes (the Cuban guy).[/quote]

Melky has below average defense which won’t bode well in a spacious park like AT&T. They should’ve gotten more for Sanchez in an offseason where CJ Wilson is the headline FA SP IMO.

I haven’t watched Melky much since he left NYY, but from what I remember he wasn’t much more than an extra OF with a plus arm.[/quote]

I think Melky blows. When he was in Atlanta he was a fucking joke. Anybody who takes him better not put alot of stake in his play. He plays when he feels like it and even then it’s not that good.[/quote]

He had a career year last year, I guess there’s a glimmer of hope it works out for the Giants. [/quote]

Just a glimmer. Melky seems to be the kinda guy who’ll turn it on when he’s against the ropes, but get comfortable and lazy when he’s not. The Giants are in desperate need of O, so I guess they need to take their chances.[/quote]

As I said before, I think it was good for both sides. Sanchez is way to hit or miss, and that inconsistency was killing us. Also throw in the fact that we’re forced to slot in Zito as our number 5 and there’d be no room for Sanchez, and the trade simply made sense.

1025

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
MLB is closer to finishing a new labor deal.

Among other things, (the deal) will pave the way for realignment of the sport into two 15-team leagues, adding a second wild-card team in each league, spreading interleague play throughout all six months of the regular season and making significant changes to the draft, free agency and the so-called “Competitive Balance Tax.”

I think turning the divisions into two 15 team leagues and adding another wild card team is a terrible idea. What about division rivalries. If there is going to be more interleague play, then why not have both leagues either have DHs or none at all. Also, why not just let more teams into the playoffs to water it down some. Do you know how uninteresting the run to the playoffs would have been this year if there was an extra wildcard team? The epic collapses of Boston and Atlanta wouldn’t have even been big news. They both would have made the playoffs even though they didn’t deserve it with how terrible they played at the end. It’s like they are trying to turn into the NBA.[/quote]

A) Why is moving the Astros to the AL a terrible idea?

B) I hate how pitchers hit, would love to see the NL adopt the DH

C) I disagree on it being uninteresting with more Wildcard spots, would allow for more races that last longer. It’s true that in the NBA the season is in many ways pointless and the top teams can coast with little consequence. However, with humongous payroll inequities competition has become non-exisistant in a couple divisions. Maybe you do not like the idea of an extra wildcard, but something had to be done. I would’ve preferred the implementation of a balanced schedule and just having the top 4 teams from each league make the post season in place of divisions. Of course, with the hard-on ESPN and MLB have for Yankee-Red Sox games that would never happen.

1026

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
MLB is closer to finishing a new labor deal.

Among other things, (the deal) will pave the way for realignment of the sport into two 15-team leagues, adding a second wild-card team in each league, spreading interleague play throughout all six months of the regular season and making significant changes to the draft, free agency and the so-called “Competitive Balance Tax.”

I think turning the divisions into two 15 team leagues and adding another wild card team is a terrible idea. What about division rivalries. If there is going to be more interleague play, then why not have both leagues either have DHs or none at all. Also, why not just let more teams into the playoffs to water it down some. Do you know how uninteresting the run to the playoffs would have been this year if there was an extra wildcard team? The epic collapses of Boston and Atlanta wouldn’t have even been big news. They both would have made the playoffs even though they didn’t deserve it with how terrible they played at the end. It’s like they are trying to turn into the NBA.[/quote]

A) Why is moving the Astros to the AL a terrible idea?

B) I hate how pitchers hit, would love to see the NL adopt the DH

C) I disagree on it being uninteresting with more Wildcard spots, would allow for more races that last longer. It’s true that in the NBA the season is in many ways pointless and the top teams can coast with little consequence. However, with humongous payroll inequities competition has become non-exisistant in a couple divisions. Maybe you do not like the idea of an extra wildcard, but something had to be done. I would’ve preferred the implementation of a balanced schedule and just having the top 4 teams from each league make the post season in place of divisions. Of course, with the hard-on ESPN and MLB have for Yankee-Red Sox games that would never happen.

[/quote]
I didn’t say anything about moving the Astros the AL a bad idea. I just don’t like having all these interleague games when the AL and NL play different styles.

I still think the NFL has the best scheduling process and playoffs.

1027

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
MLB is closer to finishing a new labor deal.

Among other things, (the deal) will pave the way for realignment of the sport into two 15-team leagues, adding a second wild-card team in each league, spreading interleague play throughout all six months of the regular season and making significant changes to the draft, free agency and the so-called “Competitive Balance Tax.”

I think turning the divisions into two 15 team leagues and adding another wild card team is a terrible idea. What about division rivalries. If there is going to be more interleague play, then why not have both leagues either have DHs or none at all. Also, why not just let more teams into the playoffs to water it down some. Do you know how uninteresting the run to the playoffs would have been this year if there was an extra wildcard team? The epic collapses of Boston and Atlanta wouldn’t have even been big news. They both would have made the playoffs even though they didn’t deserve it with how terrible they played at the end. It’s like they are trying to turn into the NBA.[/quote]

A) Why is moving the Astros to the AL a terrible idea?

B) I hate how pitchers hit, would love to see the NL adopt the DH

C) I disagree on it being uninteresting with more Wildcard spots, would allow for more races that last longer. It’s true that in the NBA the season is in many ways pointless and the top teams can coast with little consequence. However, with humongous payroll inequities competition has become non-exisistant in a couple divisions. Maybe you do not like the idea of an extra wildcard, but something had to be done. I would’ve preferred the implementation of a balanced schedule and just having the top 4 teams from each league make the post season in place of divisions. Of course, with the hard-on ESPN and MLB have for Yankee-Red Sox games that would never happen.

[/quote]
I didn’t say anything about moving the Astros the AL a bad idea. I just don’t like having all these interleague games when the AL and NL play different styles.

I still think the NFL has the best scheduling process and playoffs.[/quote]

I hate the DH. I wish the AL would do away with it. If you don’t wield a glove you don’t wield a bat either…NL baseball is real, the AL is just pretending :wink:

1028

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
MLB is closer to finishing a new labor deal.

Among other things, (the deal) will pave the way for realignment of the sport into two 15-team leagues, adding a second wild-card team in each league, spreading interleague play throughout all six months of the regular season and making significant changes to the draft, free agency and the so-called “Competitive Balance Tax.”

I think turning the divisions into two 15 team leagues and adding another wild card team is a terrible idea. What about division rivalries. If there is going to be more interleague play, then why not have both leagues either have DHs or none at all. Also, why not just let more teams into the playoffs to water it down some. Do you know how uninteresting the run to the playoffs would have been this year if there was an extra wildcard team? The epic collapses of Boston and Atlanta wouldn’t have even been big news. They both would have made the playoffs even though they didn’t deserve it with how terrible they played at the end. It’s like they are trying to turn into the NBA.[/quote]

A) Why is moving the Astros to the AL a terrible idea?

B) I hate how pitchers hit, would love to see the NL adopt the DH

C) I disagree on it being uninteresting with more Wildcard spots, would allow for more races that last longer. It’s true that in the NBA the season is in many ways pointless and the top teams can coast with little consequence. However, with humongous payroll inequities competition has become non-exisistant in a couple divisions. Maybe you do not like the idea of an extra wildcard, but something had to be done. I would’ve preferred the implementation of a balanced schedule and just having the top 4 teams from each league make the post season in place of divisions. Of course, with the hard-on ESPN and MLB have for Yankee-Red Sox games that would never happen.

[/quote]
I didn’t say anything about moving the Astros the AL a bad idea. I just don’t like having all these interleague games when the AL and NL play different styles.

I still think the NFL has the best scheduling process and playoffs.[/quote]

I hate the DH. I wish the AL would do away with it. If you don’t wield a glove you don’t wield a bat either…NL baseball is real, the AL is just pretending ;)[/quote]

Not sure if I really want to get into this again, you joined this thread late and this topic was discussed ages ago. But here goes…

There hasn’t been a good hitting pitcher in the modern era and there likely never will be. Pitchers simply do not have the time to master two crafts simultaneously (3 if you count fielding) nor do they get enough ABs in a season to ever hit their groove.

Secondly, I’m all about the best product possible. Sure the DH allows for 1 dimensional players to get into the lineup regularly, but they still provide value in what they do while a hitting pitcher just takes away IMO. You should know, you’ve seen the tactics NL managers employ to take advantage of the pitching spot.

Lastly, I don’t care how long the hitting pitcher has been around, ideas should be able to stand on their own merit, tradition be damned. Having pitchers hit is a bad idea.

1029

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
MLB is closer to finishing a new labor deal.

Among other things, (the deal) will pave the way for realignment of the sport into two 15-team leagues, adding a second wild-card team in each league, spreading interleague play throughout all six months of the regular season and making significant changes to the draft, free agency and the so-called “Competitive Balance Tax.”

I think turning the divisions into two 15 team leagues and adding another wild card team is a terrible idea. What about division rivalries. If there is going to be more interleague play, then why not have both leagues either have DHs or none at all. Also, why not just let more teams into the playoffs to water it down some. Do you know how uninteresting the run to the playoffs would have been this year if there was an extra wildcard team? The epic collapses of Boston and Atlanta wouldn’t have even been big news. They both would have made the playoffs even though they didn’t deserve it with how terrible they played at the end. It’s like they are trying to turn into the NBA.[/quote]

A) Why is moving the Astros to the AL a terrible idea?

B) I hate how pitchers hit, would love to see the NL adopt the DH

C) I disagree on it being uninteresting with more Wildcard spots, would allow for more races that last longer. It’s true that in the NBA the season is in many ways pointless and the top teams can coast with little consequence. However, with humongous payroll inequities competition has become non-exisistant in a couple divisions. Maybe you do not like the idea of an extra wildcard, but something had to be done. I would’ve preferred the implementation of a balanced schedule and just having the top 4 teams from each league make the post season in place of divisions. Of course, with the hard-on ESPN and MLB have for Yankee-Red Sox games that would never happen.

[/quote]
I didn’t say anything about moving the Astros the AL a bad idea. I just don’t like having all these interleague games when the AL and NL play different styles.

I still think the NFL has the best scheduling process and playoffs.[/quote]

I hate the DH. I wish the AL would do away with it. If you don’t wield a glove you don’t wield a bat either…NL baseball is real, the AL is just pretending ;)[/quote]

Not sure if I really want to get into this again, you joined this thread late and this topic was discussed ages ago. But here goes…

There hasn’t been a good hitting pitcher in the modern era and there likely never will be. Pitchers simply do not have the time to master two crafts simultaneously (3 if you count fielding) nor do they get enough ABs in a season to ever hit their groove.

Secondly, I’m all about the best product possible. Sure the DH allows for 1 dimensional players to get into the lineup regularly, but they still provide value in what they do while a hitting pitcher just takes away IMO. You should know, you’ve seen the tactics NL managers employ to take advantage of the pitching spot.

Lastly, I don’t care how long the hitting pitcher has been around, ideas should be able to stand on their own merit, tradition be damned. Having pitchers hit is a bad idea.

[/quote]

Conversely, I think having that element in your line up really ups the mental game. As a coach you have to choose much more wisely and time your changes more carefully. You can’t just pull a pitcher when they are tired because of what it does to your line up the next inning. I just think it’s more fun from a game and strategy perspective. And ding bat with a third grade education can manage a game in the AL. You need to know your team and your pitching staff way better to manage a game in the NL…

I am not really going to champion it though. It’s not going to change. I live in an NL town so I got what I want. What I really want baseball to work on is shortening the game a bit. These fucking hitters don’t need to step out of the box, tied their shoes, adjust their gloves and call their mom after every pitch. The game is an average 30 minutes longer than it was 10 -15 years ago…That’s my biggest beef. They need to trim the fat off some of these stupid rituals. They get paid millions they can get over not doing all that superstitious crap.

1030

1440×900 143 KB

Jays new uniform - it’s the alternate jersey

Me rikey

1031

1440×900 189 KB

.

1032

Verlander!!

1033

In the end the MVP is a popularity contest. People have been talking about Verlander since May and it’s been that narrative that won him the MVP.

Heck, just look at the Cy Young voting. Sabathia was clearly the 2nd best pitcher in AL, yet finished 4th in voting and didn’t even get an MVP vote. Same with Weaver.

Verlander threw 15 more innings and allowed eight more runs than Jered Weaver, who wasn’t named on a ballot.

Some reporter even voted Michael Young as their first place vote. Ridiculous.

What also annoys the hell out of me is this belief the Tigers would not’ve made the postseason without him.

The Tigers won the Division by 15 games and went 26-9 in Verlander’s starts. Do the math.

I would’ve been fine with Ellsbury or Bautista winning the award, but as you can see hype is the most important factor when winning a popularity contest.

1034

[quote]therajraj wrote:
In the end the MVP is a popularity contest. People have been talking about Verlander since May and it’s been that narrative that won him the MVP.

Heck, just look at the Cy Young voting. Sabathia was clearly the 2nd best pitcher in AL, yet finished 4th in voting and didn’t even get an MVP vote. Same with Weaver.

Verlander threw 15 more innings and allowed eight more runs than Jered Weaver, who wasn’t named on a ballot.

Some reporter even voted Michael Young as their first place vote. Ridiculous.

What also annoys the hell out of me is this belief the Tigers would not’ve made the postseason without him.

The Tigers won the Division by 15 games and went 26-9 in Verlander’s starts. Do the math.

I would’ve been fine with Ellsbury or Bautista winning the award, but as you can see hype is the most important factor when winning a popularity contest.

[/quote]

I think your wrong on this one. People were talking just as much about Bautista. Verlander was simply the better player, and more important to his team (although I do agree that they are close).

I think your just mad that I called Verlander winning months ago. Just admit it. Come on.

1035

[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
In the end the MVP is a popularity contest. People have been talking about Verlander since May and it’s been that narrative that won him the MVP.

Heck, just look at the Cy Young voting. Sabathia was clearly the 2nd best pitcher in AL, yet finished 4th in voting and didn’t even get an MVP vote. Same with Weaver.

Verlander threw 15 more innings and allowed eight more runs than Jered Weaver, who wasn’t named on a ballot.

Some reporter even voted Michael Young as their first place vote. Ridiculous.

What also annoys the hell out of me is this belief the Tigers would not’ve made the postseason without him.

The Tigers won the Division by 15 games and went 26-9 in Verlander’s starts. Do the math.

I would’ve been fine with Ellsbury or Bautista winning the award, but as you can see hype is the most important factor when winning a popularity contest.

[/quote]

I think your wrong on this one. People were talking just as much about Bautista. Verlander was simply the better player, and more important to his team (although I do agree that they are close).

I think your just mad that I called Verlander winning months ago. Just admit it. Come on.[/quote]

Nah, all I heard for the last 3 months of the season was how great a season Verlander was having. Bautista’s MVP talk died down a while ago.

What have you written is basically the narrative that was repeated ad nauseum for the 2nd half of the season. So let me ask how did you decide Verlander was simply the better player and more important to his team?

Was it because they made the playoffs and Toronto/Boston didn’t? Because they would’ve made the playoffs without him.

Was it because he had the highest Wins Above Replacement? Because Bautista and Ellsbury had a higher WAR on all 3 sites that calculate it.

Was it the 24 pitching wins? You know he needed his teammates to get those wins right? There’s a couples guys named Miguel Cabrera and Alex Avila that helped him out a ton on that one.

Was it because he was far and away the best starting pitcher in the AL? Because Sabathia performance wasn’t much behind Verlanders’.

Was it because he had a historic season breaking multiple records? He didn’t have one.

FTR, If you scroll back through the thread, I picked Verlander to win the award based on what I was hearing in the news, but I thought Bautista deserved it. I wasn’t surprised he won at all.

Sportswriters like to vote for the story and that’s why Verlander won.

1036

I really like this schematic for the whole Verlander for MVP. Sums it up nicely:

http://nationalsreview.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/verlanders-perceived-value/

1037

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
MLB is closer to finishing a new labor deal.

Among other things, (the deal) will pave the way for realignment of the sport into two 15-team leagues, adding a second wild-card team in each league, spreading interleague play throughout all six months of the regular season and making significant changes to the draft, free agency and the so-called “Competitive Balance Tax.”

I think turning the divisions into two 15 team leagues and adding another wild card team is a terrible idea. What about division rivalries. If there is going to be more interleague play, then why not have both leagues either have DHs or none at all. Also, why not just let more teams into the playoffs to water it down some. Do you know how uninteresting the run to the playoffs would have been this year if there was an extra wildcard team? The epic collapses of Boston and Atlanta wouldn’t have even been big news. They both would have made the playoffs even though they didn’t deserve it with how terrible they played at the end. It’s like they are trying to turn into the NBA.[/quote]

A) Why is moving the Astros to the AL a terrible idea?

B) I hate how pitchers hit, would love to see the NL adopt the DH

C) I disagree on it being uninteresting with more Wildcard spots, would allow for more races that last longer. It’s true that in the NBA the season is in many ways pointless and the top teams can coast with little consequence. However, with humongous payroll inequities competition has become non-exisistant in a couple divisions. Maybe you do not like the idea of an extra wildcard, but something had to be done. I would’ve preferred the implementation of a balanced schedule and just having the top 4 teams from each league make the post season in place of divisions. Of course, with the hard-on ESPN and MLB have for Yankee-Red Sox games that would never happen.

[/quote]
I didn’t say anything about moving the Astros the AL a bad idea. I just don’t like having all these interleague games when the AL and NL play different styles.

I still think the NFL has the best scheduling process and playoffs.[/quote]

I hate the DH. I wish the AL would do away with it. If you don’t wield a glove you don’t wield a bat either…NL baseball is real, the AL is just pretending ;)[/quote]

Not sure if I really want to get into this again, you joined this thread late and this topic was discussed ages ago. But here goes…

There hasn’t been a good hitting pitcher in the modern era and there likely never will be. Pitchers simply do not have the time to master two crafts simultaneously (3 if you count fielding) nor do they get enough ABs in a season to ever hit their groove.

Secondly, I’m all about the best product possible. Sure the DH allows for 1 dimensional players to get into the lineup regularly, but they still provide value in what they do while a hitting pitcher just takes away IMO. You should know, you’ve seen the tactics NL managers employ to take advantage of the pitching spot.

Lastly, I don’t care how long the hitting pitcher has been around, ideas should be able to stand on their own merit, tradition be damned. Having pitchers hit is a bad idea.

[/quote]

Conversely, I think having that element in your line up really ups the mental game. As a coach you have to choose much more wisely and time your changes more carefully. You can’t just pull a pitcher when they are tired because of what it does to your line up the next inning. I just think it’s more fun from a game and strategy perspective. And ding bat with a third grade education can manage a game in the AL. You need to know your team and your pitching staff way better to manage a game in the NL…

I am not really going to champion it though. It’s not going to change. I live in an NL town so I got what I want. What I really want baseball to work on is shortening the game a bit. These fucking hitters don’t need to step out of the box, tied their shoes, adjust their gloves and call their mom after every pitch. The game is an average 30 minutes longer than it was 10 -15 years ago…That’s my biggest beef. They need to trim the fat off some of these stupid rituals. They get paid millions they can get over not doing all that superstitious crap.[/quote]

You can blame that on the creation of the ‘save’ and less on batters stepping out of the box, which has been going on forever.

Blame Tony LaRussa for lengthening games.

And blame television commercials. Clearly this is the most significant factor. Comparing ANYTHING in sports to what went on 30 years ago is silly.

1038

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
In the end the MVP is a popularity contest. People have been talking about Verlander since May and it’s been that narrative that won him the MVP.

Heck, just look at the Cy Young voting. Sabathia was clearly the 2nd best pitcher in AL, yet finished 4th in voting and didn’t even get an MVP vote. Same with Weaver.

Verlander threw 15 more innings and allowed eight more runs than Jered Weaver, who wasn’t named on a ballot.

Some reporter even voted Michael Young as their first place vote. Ridiculous.

What also annoys the hell out of me is this belief the Tigers would not’ve made the postseason without him.

The Tigers won the Division by 15 games and went 26-9 in Verlander’s starts. Do the math.

I would’ve been fine with Ellsbury or Bautista winning the award, but as you can see hype is the most important factor when winning a popularity contest.

[/quote]

I think your wrong on this one. People were talking just as much about Bautista. Verlander was simply the better player, and more important to his team (although I do agree that they are close).

I think your just mad that I called Verlander winning months ago. Just admit it. Come on.[/quote]

Nah, all I heard for the last 3 months of the season was how great a season Verlander was having. Bautista’s MVP talk died down a while ago.

What have you written is basically the narrative that was repeated ad nauseum for the 2nd half of the season. So let me ask how did you decide Verlander was simply the better player and more important to his team?

Was it because they made the playoffs and Toronto/Boston didn’t? Because they would’ve made the playoffs without him.

Was it because he had the highest Wins Above Replacement? Because Bautista and Ellsbury had a higher WAR on all 3 sites that calculate it.

Was it the 24 pitching wins? You know he needed his teammates to get those wins right? There’s a couples guys named Miguel Cabrera and Alex Avila that helped him out a ton on that one.

Was it because he was far and away the best starting pitcher in the AL? Because Sabathia performance wasn’t much behind Verlanders’.

Was it because he had a historic season breaking multiple records? He didn’t have one.

FTR, If you scroll back through the thread, I picked Verlander to win the award based on what I was hearing in the news, but I thought Bautista deserved it. I wasn’t surprised he won at all.

Sportswriters like to vote for the story and that’s why Verlander won.

[/quote]

I agree with all of this.

Theres not a single justification for Verlander winning. His season wasnt special.

1039

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I really like this schematic for the whole Verlander for MVP. Sums it up nicely:

http://nationalsreview.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/verlanders-perceived-value/[/quote]

But you also must realize that this analysis blows your Granderson vs Bautista argument right out of the water.

1040

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I really like this schematic for the whole Verlander for MVP. Sums it up nicely:

http://nationalsreview.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/verlanders-perceived-value/[/quote]

But you also must realize that this analysis blows your Granderson vs Bautista argument right out of the water. [/quote]

How so?

Are you talking about your case for Granderson based on RBI/RS? If so I don’t see how.