Should Jacoby Ellsbury be considered as an MVP candidate?

[Eja117]

Can't call a player an MVP if his team doesn't make the playoffs, in my opinion.

Give it to Verlander.

This is closest to my opinion, though I might have replaced "doesn't make the playoffs" with "has epic collapse where watching or thinking about the team makes you want to throw up". Then I get accused of hyperbole, and I'm like "that was more like modest exaggeration".

[Redz]

He had a great year from end to end, and carried the team when no one else would.  He's worthy of consideration, but Granderson will get it for the aformentioned playoffs status, and the fact that he's not a pitcher.

[Roy H.]

I'd probably lean toward Verlander.

Ellsbury is a deserving candidate, but when your team is involved in a historic collapse, it negates your contributions, unfortunately.  It won't matter that he batted .358 in September, with 8 HR and 21 RBI, or that he had an OPS of 1.067.  Because his pitching staff let the team down, Ellsbury will be excluded from serious consideration.

[nickagneta]

I'd probably lean toward Verlander.

Ellsbury is a deserving candidate, but when your team is involved in a historic collapse, it negates your contributions, unfortunately.  It won't matter that he batted .358 in September, with 8 HR and 21 RBI, or that he had an OPS of 1.067.  Because his pitching staff let the team down, Ellsbury will be excluded from serious consideration.

Agree 100% with Roy. Absolutely marvelous season and I don't care an iota about this new WAR stat that is being pushed that shows Ellsbury should win it.

His team collapsed and Verlander is easily the best candidate besides Ellsbury. Detroit was 16 games over .500 in games in which Verlander pitched. They won their division by 15 games.

[Greenbean]

I'd probably lean toward Verlander.

Ellsbury is a deserving candidate, but when your team is involved in a historic collapse, it negates your contributions, unfortunately.  It won't matter that he batted .358 in September, with 8 HR and 21 RBI, or that he had an OPS of 1.067.  Because his pitching staff let the team down, Ellsbury will be excluded from serious consideration.

Agree 100% with Roy. Absolutely marvelous season and I don't care an iota about this new WAR stat that is being pushed that shows Ellsbury should win it.

His team collapsed and Verlander is easily the best candidate besides Ellsbury. Detroit was 16 games over .500 in games in which Verlander pitched. They won their division by 15 games.

I definitely agree with you 100% but just think of this. Without Elsbury, the Sox might not have won a single game in September.

[Steve Weinman]

I'd probably lean toward Verlander.

Ellsbury is a deserving candidate, but when your team is involved in a historic collapse, it negates your contributions, unfortunately.  It won't matter that he batted .358 in September, with 8 HR and 21 RBI, or that he had an OPS of 1.067.  Because his pitching staff let the team down, Ellsbury will be excluded from serious consideration.

In the name of clarity: That the italicized statement is likely true serves as a reminder of what's consistently wrong with awards voting rather than what's right with it.

-sw

[PosImpos]

I'd probably lean toward Verlander.

Ellsbury is a deserving candidate, but when your team is involved in a historic collapse, it negates your contributions, unfortunately.  It won't matter that he batted .358 in September, with 8 HR and 21 RBI, or that he had an OPS of 1.067.  Because his pitching staff let the team down, Ellsbury will be excluded from serious consideration.

In the name of clarity: That the italicized statement is likely true serves as a reminder of what's consistently wrong with awards voting rather than what's right with it.

-sw

I don't entirely disagree, but I don't think a player deserves MVP if his team doesn't make the playoffs.

The Tigers made the playoffs almost entirely because they had Verlander.  The Red Sox missed the playoffs despite Jacoby's great year.  That difference seals the deal in terms of any question, in my mind, of who was more valuable to their team.

Put a different way: would the Red Sox have made the playoffs without Jacoby but with Verlander?  Most likely.  Would the Tigers have made the playoffs with the same switch?  Definitely not.