Ryan Braun Closes Out Awards Season With NL MVP

A few weeks ago in the context of a larger discussion about all the baseball writers who have suddenly decided to consider the so-called “integrity clause” in the Hall of Fame’s voting rules, I wrote this:

A week or so later, I spoke with Bob Costas. His position on this issue is more nuanced than I suggested, and I apologized to him (which isn’t to suggest that he asked for one). Essentially -- and I wasn’t taking notes so I apologize (again) to Bob if this isn’t quite right -- he believes that if a Hall of Fame candidate is known to have used performance-enhancing drugs illegally and he’s a borderline candidate, he shouldn’t be elected. Or rather, if cheating made the difference between racking up Hall of Fame-level numbers or not, he shouldn’t be elected.

For years, there’s been “talk” about jazzing up the BBWAA’s annual awards.

“Instead of spacing them over two weeks, how’s about just one big night! Like the Oscars! Or the TV Land Awards!”

This one’s easy, friends.

The American League’s MVP candidates were tough to sort out. Depending on which WAR you prefer and what you think of pitchers as MVP candidates -- and there are “some” who don’t think much of pitchers at all -- there were somewhere between five and 19 legitimate contenders. Especially if you count Michael Young.

The announcement was received pretty well, or at least I think it was; from where I sat, few were disappointed. A compelling case could be made for a few other candidates, but a compelling case could also be made for Verlander, so he’s thought to be a deserving winner in a group of would-be deserving winners.

If you believe in WAR, Young was the Rangers’ tenth-most valuable player this season according to Baseball-Reference, and eighth-most valuable player according to FanGraphs. If you don’t believe in WAR, what Young offered was durability and a high batting average. What he didn’t offer was good defense, good power, or much in the way of patience. He was an important player on a good team, but he was by no means the most important, and keep in mind that we’re talking about just the Rangers. In the whole league? It’s nonsense.

Now, we shouldn’t make too terribly much of this.

So, 240 to 12. Let’s not make too much of it.

The 2011 NL Cy Young award did not look so easy. Depending on who you talked to, the NL race featured either a two- or a three-headed monster. The top candidates?

So close. As our own Rob Neyer wrote just today, Kershaw won the NL pitching triple crown and appeared to be the favorite, but a convincing argument could be made for any one of those guys. Kershaw had ERA and strikeouts. Halladay had FIP and control. Lee had shutouts and wasn’t exactly far behind in anything else.

But there was the element of surprise to him, just like there was with Francisco Rodriguez in the 2002 postseason. He was an unknown with a crazy fastball and a deceptive delivery, but the more players saw him, the less the deception would matter. It made sense that when the league saw him a couple of teams. he wouldn’t be quite as magical.

I was right. His K/9 cratered in 2011, dropping from 17.4 as a rookie to 14.8, which was good only for sixth-best ever. Maybe the Braves should be worried about him.