"Justin Verlander won the American League Most Valuable Player award for two reasons: He had a dominant, resonant season, and no AL position player really did.

Jose Bautista was the best hitter in the league, but his team didn't contend. We can debate whether team success SHOULD be a factor, but there is no doubt that it is. Curtis Granderson and Jacoby Ellsbury had terrific years in centerfield, a premium defensive position, for contending teams, but their numbers did not blow you away.

In a tight voting year, a candidate needs a story, and Verlander had the best story. I know that sounds silly -- this is baseball, not bedtime for a 5-year-old. But it's true. Look at the Hall of Fame voting. Kirby Puckett (lovable butterball, forced to retire early because of glaucoma) easily earned induction. Alan Trammell (All-Star player for many years, but with no compelling story) has barely received consideration. I think Trammell should be in, but he needs people to sell his candidacy to the voters.

ORDER YOUR VERLANDER POSTERS!

Verlander was the best pitcher in baseball this year, but that alone does not explain why he won the MVP. After all, there is a best pitcher in baseball every year. No, Verlander's story line of dominance was the difference. He threw his second no-hitter, and for a two-month stretch, he seemed like he could throw one in every start. If you watched him, his arsenal of four pitches just seemed unfair. Greg Maddux was just as dominant at his peak, but he didn't APPEAR as dominant, and he never came close to winning an MVP. Verlander looked the part of an MVP.

Plus, the Tigers were exactly as good as Verlander needed them to be. If they had started 35-5 and won 110 games, I don't think Verlander would have won the award. Voters would have said, "Hey, Verlander is great, but the Tigers would have won that division without him." This year, it seemed like he was the difference. That is too simplistic, but there is at least some truth to it.

This is the kind of thing that fascinates me about awards voting. The arguments say as much about the people who are arguing as anything else."