Skip to main content

Detroit Tigers' starting pitcher, Justin Verlander, wins American League MVP

I'm honestly not certain how I feel about this. It seems that a majority of fans and "experts" alike believe pitchers have the Cy Young award and since they don't play every day, shouldn't be given consideration for the MVP award. I'd say that I typically agree with this philosophy, but think there are exceptions and while I'm not 100% certain I believe Verlander was deserving of the MVP this year, if there was ever a year for a pitcher to have won it, it would have been this one. The only thing that's kind of holding me back right now isn't the fact that Verlander is a pitcher. It's the fact that the Detroit Tigers had a very good offense this year. Verlander put up incredible numbers, going 24-5 with a 2.40 ERA and 250 strikeouts to win what is known as the AL pitching triple crown. Like I said, the guy had outstanding numbers and if I were voting on the "best" player in the American League this year, I would most certainly have voted for Verlander. However, MOST VALUABLE? I'm not entirely certain. In all of baseball, the Detroit Tigers finished 4th in runs scored with 787, 3rd in batting average at .277, 4th in on-base percentage at .340 and 4th in slugging percentage at .434. I'm not ultimately stating that Verlander wasn't deserving of MVP, but if we take the award as being literal and going to the player whom was most valuable to his club, the Tigers' great offensive numbers make me hesitate a bit before declaring Verlander as this year's AL MVP. Who else possibly deserved it? Considering Boston and Toronto didn't make the playoffs and the Red Sox own Jacoby Ellsbury and Jose Bautista of the Blue Jays finished 2nd and 3rd in the voting, perhaps based on the process of elimination, Verlander was deserving of the award. I feel like a Democrat on this (...and more or less, I am one...), where I may be leaning one way (saying he deserves the award), but can't fully make up my mind.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7265534/cy-young-winner-justin-verlander-detroit-tigers-wins-al-mvp
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more