MLB Offseason 2011
- Thread starter Mr. Laser Beam
- Start date
- Status
I want Zambrano out yesterday, but I hope he's okay. Head injuries are nothing to mess around with.
Eh, I think there's more to it than that.
If I had to make a conclusion from this, I'd say that the vote just got split. Half the writers in the BBWAA think a pitcher can deserve a #1 vote for MVP, while half don't. The half that don't were split between whether a guy who is on a contending team is more valuable (the Ellsbury / Granderson votes) or not (Bautista).
Verlander is a perfectly fine winner, except for the fact that better pitcher seasons weren't similarly recognized earlier, and there's no award for "best hitter" given as much weight as the Cy Young.
In any event, one Michael Young first place vote is far stupider and more offensive than 13 Verlander first place votes.
Yeah, Michael Young even getting any votes is pretty ridiculous. But the argument that the MVP shouldn't be awarded to a player not on a contending team went out the window when Alex Rodriguez won the award in 2003 while playing for the last-place Texas Rangers. If Pedro Martinez wasn't good enough to win both the Cy Young and the MVP in 1999, then Justin Verlander most certainly should not have won both in 2011.
The problem with awarding a pitcher the MVP is that so many sports writers continue to inflate the importance of a pitcher's wins, which are far too dependent on the rest of the team to be considered a meaningful stat for pitchers.
The problem with awarding a pitcher the MVP is that so many sports writers continue to inflate the importance of a pitcher's wins, which are far too dependent on the rest of the team to be considered a meaningful stat for pitchers.
You can make an argument that wins were a factor (and they almost certainly were in the minds of some writers still stuck in the 1970s), but the dude's WHIP in 2011 was 0.92 in 251 innings, paired with 250 strikeouts. That's a balls-out season by any metric.
Don't get me wrong, it's definitely odd. It's very hard to justify that this was the season where the writers broke their ironclad "no pitchers for MVP" deal.
Really, the far more ridiculous thing than Verlander winning is Bautista getting third place. What the fuck, BBWAA.
(Also, Andre Dawson's MVP in '87 predated A-Rod's by a country mile.
)
Don't get me wrong, it's definitely odd. It's very hard to justify that this was the season where the writers broke their ironclad "no pitchers for MVP" deal.
Really, the far more ridiculous thing than Verlander winning is Bautista getting third place. What the fuck, BBWAA.
(Also, Andre Dawson's MVP in '87 predated A-Rod's by a country mile.
)
Ryan Braun wins NL MVP.
Wow. Braun's not a bad choice at all, but I thought Matt Kemp was going to win it.
Wow. Braun's not a bad choice at all, but I thought Matt Kemp was going to win it.
I'm not happy about this. Nathan didn't have the best year (always tough coming back from Tommy John surgery), but he was one of the few competent members of the Twins' bullpen. That leaves the Twins with yet another hole to fill.
Yeah, but the guy's ancient, is coming off a year ruined by arm injuries, and gets 2/14 plus an option? That contract is mad.
Not as mad as the new CBA, though. Between the amateur acquisition changes and the extra playoff spot I really think this is the end of healthy, competitive baseball as we know it.
Not as mad as the new CBA, though. Between the amateur acquisition changes and the extra playoff spot I really think this is the end of healthy, competitive baseball as we know it.
I like a lot of the smaller rules. Policing the luxury tax to require small teams to spend more money is a good one, for example. They also permanently locked out big market teams from ever receiving money from the luxury tax (ironically, the Phillies were one of the reasons we got the system in the first place because they argued they were not a major market team). They're expanding replay. I'm also OK with ending all those compensatory draft picks (although I do think they should give compensatory picks for rental players because they're good for small market teams). HGH blood testing is a good one as well. Expanded rosters for double-headers is very good. There's talk of split-team double-headers which strikes me as pushing it, though. More double-headers would be good, imo, both because it's a very traditional baseball thing and because it might help shorten the season.
The two big things, of course, can be cause for concern.
The expansion of the playoffs reduces the chance of competitiveness. However, I think that is mitigated somewhat. Even last season, which looked like the entire playoff system was locked in, teams made a surge to try and get into the playoffs. There's still an incentive to win the division and, if anything, I'd argue that a one game elimination makes the division more valuable.
And, yes, I see that a one game elimination is not very baseball oriented. However, baseball has always had that if there are tied records at the end. The way I view it, it's just expanding it to include the two closest teams that did not win the division.
It's non-traditional and certainly has disadvantages, but I'd say it's a mixed blessing overall.
The year-round interleague and even leagues scares me. Quite honestly, it scares me a lot. I'm terrified this might be the end of National League Rules. I don't care if the NL is the only league that still holds on to it, it's purer baseball. I think it's more exciting baseball because I value more than homeruns. However, given pitcher contracts, I think it's only a matter of time before year-round pressure of rule differences leads to a change.
The two big things, of course, can be cause for concern.
The expansion of the playoffs reduces the chance of competitiveness. However, I think that is mitigated somewhat. Even last season, which looked like the entire playoff system was locked in, teams made a surge to try and get into the playoffs. There's still an incentive to win the division and, if anything, I'd argue that a one game elimination makes the division more valuable.
And, yes, I see that a one game elimination is not very baseball oriented. However, baseball has always had that if there are tied records at the end. The way I view it, it's just expanding it to include the two closest teams that did not win the division.
It's non-traditional and certainly has disadvantages, but I'd say it's a mixed blessing overall.
The year-round interleague and even leagues scares me. Quite honestly, it scares me a lot. I'm terrified this might be the end of National League Rules. I don't care if the NL is the only league that still holds on to it, it's purer baseball. I think it's more exciting baseball because I value more than homeruns. However, given pitcher contracts, I think it's only a matter of time before year-round pressure of rule differences leads to a change.
- Status
