Can a pitcher deserve to win the league MVP award?
Posted by Andy on September 16, 2011
Every time a starting pitcher has a monster season, a debate arises around whether a pitcher can deserve to win the MVP (or even if they should be eligible to win it.)
Justin Verlander is up to 23 wins, and leads the majors in IP, K, ERA+, and WHIP. He will be the unanimous AL Cy Young winner and I believe also deserves to win the AL MVP award.
Here's my argument for why pitchers should be eligible to win the award, and why Verlander specifically deserves it this year.
1. Right away, let's throw out the argument that pitchers have their own award (the Cy Young) and therefore shouldn't be eligible for the MVP. Hitters have their own award too (the Hank Aaron award) and so do rookies (The Rookie of the Year). Fred Lynn was the only hitter to receive first-place MVP votes in 1975, and that was his rookie season (ironically Rollie Fingers got the other two). Since rookies have their own award, though, should voters have taken Lynn off the ballot and given the award to John Mayberry instead?
2. A starting pitcher can be worth a ton of wins to his team. And I don't mean--ooh, wow, Verlander has 23 wins and deserves the MVP. There are lots of ways to look at this issue:
- In terms of basic wins and losses, the Tigers are 24-8 in games started by Verlander. That's a tidy .750 W-L%. Since they are 87-62 overall, that means they are 63-54 (.538) in games started by other pitchers. Had they played .538 ball in Verlander's 32 starts, they would have gone 17-15. That suggest right away that Verlander has been worth 7 wins already this season--and that's a ton. You would be hard pressed to demonstrate more than 1 or 2 hitters who have been worth 7 wins to their team.
- Turning instead to an advanced metric, take a look at the WAR leaders for the 2011 AL. Verlander's at 7.9 wins, trailing only Jose Bautista at 8.2 and well ahead of #3 Jacoby Ellsbury at 7.1. This is a totally different calculation than my basic one in the previous paragraph, and yet it awards Verlander just about the same number of wins, and he's right on par with the best players in the league. Perhaps one could legitimately argue that Bautista deserves the MVP, but if so, it would be by a razor-thin margin ahead of Verlander.
3. A starting pitcher plays only every 5th day you say? Well, a hitter bats only one out of every 9 plate appearances. Full-time hitters will have close to 700 plate appearances in a full season. Verlander has already faced 910 batters this season, meaning he'll likely finish close to 1,000. So for all those opportunities that Bautista, Ellsbury, and every other batter has had to hit homers, get on bae, and drive in runs, Verlander has actually had even more opportunities to prevent such outcomes, and has been involved in a larger percentage of his team's game plate appearances. (Hat tip to reader Tim C. for emailing about this particular point.)
4. Win probability added (WPA) is another good way of looking Verlander's contributions. This gives an indication of how truly meaning Verlander's performance has been, in terms of game situations. It inherently factors in things like run support--if the Tigers scored a ton of runs for him, then the outs he recorded would be worth a lot less WPA. Verlander is second among pitchers in WPA in the AL, a bit behind Jered Weaver. Even compared to all players in the AL, Verlander is 6th overall and ahead of players like Adrian Gonzalez and Curtis Granderson. As with the WAR argument, yes--there are players ahead of Verlander in WPA, but not many. The important conclusion here is that a dominant starting pitcher can rank among the league's most valuable players.
So what do you think? Please vote in these two polls.
September 16th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
I think they should wait until season's end (or at least closer than we are now). But word on the streets is that your wish may be granted.
September 16th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
#13. 100% agreed. You are a crappy writer. Admitting it is the first step. Now quit.
September 16th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
@102 You first.
@99 That will happen at the end of the regular season
@97 It's because of what I wrote at the very beginning of the post--there's tons of debate going on right now across the country about whether a pitcher should win it. The fact that some have before doesn't sway the minds of many people. I thought it was worth discussing.
September 16th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
I've been trying to figure out if Andy&Mandy's handle is somehow a twist at Andy.
September 16th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
@103
Fair enough but I feel that "tons of debate" is just petty sports writers who can't find actual stories to write about it. Anyone true fan, yourself included in that, should know a pitcher can win, plain and simple. It's been done in the past and there is no reason it can't happen again.
September 16th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Also Andy, don't feed the trolls!
September 16th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Also, to conclude my point, what really gets me about this post is "Could a pitcher win" when in fact it should be "Should he win" because everyone who posts on this site should know that he can.
September 16th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
I voted yes and he is my MVP this year. Hard to see how Detroit is where they are without him.
September 16th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
@87
When I mentioned contributing runs, I wasn't talking R's and RBI's. You can contribute to a run without directly driving it in or scoring it yourself.
Say he comes to the plate with a runner on first and singles him over to 3rd. That runner later scores but Bautista doesn't. Are you that this doesn't count as contributing a run? This goes for groundouts that advance base runners, walks (intentional or not, they advance any runner on 1st), SH (I know he doesn't, but its another way to contribute to a run).
Or even if he leads off an inning by getting on base and the hitters behind him strand him there. Same goes for the batters not getting on base ahead of him. There is only so much an individual player can do, and going strictly on R's and RBI's doesn't show you how much a player contributes offensively.
September 16th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Also @87
Even if he doesn't score in half his games or drive in a run in half his games (not the same half) means he would still score or drive in a run in at least 80+ games by the end of the season, which is almost 3 times as many games he had a direct impact in than a starting pitcher.
September 16th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
If I had a vote I would probably favor Verlander over Bautista but a bad start for Verlander or a good 4-5 games for Bautista could change that. however I think that the Cy Young voting spots 2-5 is more up in the air than the MVP. Personally I think it should go Verlander, Beckett, Weaver, Sabathia, Shields.
September 16th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
@85 OPS+ of 99 is above average, not below. To figure the average pitchers PA's are not counted. 100 is the average without pitchers. The NL overall average for 2011 today is 95. Arizona's 99 is 5th best in the 16 team league. The D'Backs are 4th in R/G. Their 4.51 is much closer to the leaders at 4.65 than to the average of 4.13.
September 16th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
@61, John Autin.
"The problem with the method is that it can't deal with a team that has, say, dominant pitching and a crummy lineup."
Well, how about Richard Chester's example @42 of Ned Garver in 1951.
- Had 30 starts and Browns went 19-11 (0.633)
- Overall, Browns were 52-102 (.338). That winning percentage in Garver's 30 games would be a 10-20 mark.
- So, Garver added 9 wins for his team
- So, seems like his contribution is reflected pretty well.
I suspect, John, that you're thinking about someone like Felix Hernandez in 2010.
- Had 34 starts and Mariners went 17-17
- Overall, Mariners were 61-101 (.377). Translates to 13-21 in Hernandez's starts.
- So, Hernandez contributed only 4 wins, instead of the 6.2 WAR he is credited with.
So, variability from case to case (as there always is), but not sure that it "doesn't work" for good pitchers on bad teams.
September 16th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
@100/ Jason - Agreed, if we look beyond the "baseball value only" context of Robinson's year. I've read that the actual Rookie-Of-The-Year award was created in part to honor Jackie Robinson in 1947, as "rookie of his race", so to speak.
There were other other ROY awards before this (I think the Sporting News had one?), but they didn't have the prestige of the BBWAA voting.
Dropo/1950 in Fenway Park has as extreme an offensive context as DiMaggio/1936 - including park effects, 5.60 runs/game. That's positively Coors Field-esque (1998 - 5.56 R/G).
@105 (reply to #103)/ Jimbo - at last, the voice of reason! (and @106 too...)
September 16th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Andy-
As an e-friend, I implore you to be the bigger man with these trolls. You know you're better than that, I know you're better than that, and most of the B-R community knows you're better than that. Don't engage with those fools.
September 16th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
@113.
Incidentally, Garver had 5.0 WAR, but "only" 118 ERA+ in 1951.
A year earlier, he had a huge 7.1 WAR and 146 ERA+, but only went 13-18 on another lousy (58-96) Browns team. Team was only 12-19 in his starts, virtually the same as their overall mark. Wasn't an all-star, and was well back in MVP voting at 24th.
The 1950 Ned Garver is is the scenario John is talking about with a pitcher's good contributions unable to be reflected in his W-L or "wins added" because the team is so poor.
September 16th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Mark T. Says:
The reason Pedro didn't win the MVP award is because La Velle E. Neal III, (yes, that's his real name) a sportswriter for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, didn't list Pedro on his ballot. According to Wikipedia, sportswriter George King also did the same thing. ... Neal and King left him off their ballots to protest pitchers being eligible for the MVP award ...
*****************
Yup, and do you know who was on Mr. King's MVP ballot the year before (1998)? Two pitchers: David Wells and Rick Helling. In review, King -- whose current byline is (seriously!) George A. King III -- is full of crap.
September 16th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
@113.
I see I miscalculated Andy's metric, and shortchanged both Garver and Felix.
Garver in 1951, actually added 11 wins, more than double his WAR.
For Felix last year, it was about 5.3, compared to his 6.2 WAR result.
September 16th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Can someone quote info from the MVP award ballot to voters that rules out pitchers? Otherwise, the batters only bat 1/9 of the time is an interesting counterargument, of moderate but not huge weight to me. Batters come to plate often with runners on base, or get on base ahead of other batters. And, some pitching stats depend on batters as fielders.
September 16th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Andy, if it's any solace, you aren't a crappy writer at all. You are writing context, and if people think it's easy to put out blog posts that have to be well reasoned, coherent and out the door on deadline, they don't understand what it takes (they should try it). I like this site a lot. Sometimes I don't agree with the postings, but it's worth the read, and there's a lot of garbage out there that can't make that claim. Keep going.
September 16th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Thanks Mike, but don't worry, I'm not put off by trolls like that.
September 16th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Also, Jimbo and others questions the premise of this post--just because voters have voted for something in the past, doesn't mean it was correct. I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning it, even though as someone else correctly pointed out, our particular community here isn't so prone to such silliness.
September 16th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Moreso, Andy, there are many who legitimately hold that opinion. Often with the caveat that the 5 man rotation, reduced innings, etc, etc, etc, makes today incomparable to votes of the past. So, yea, I think it's a legit question, since many people hold the contrary opinion.
September 16th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
What does a shortstop do on ground balls when Verlander pitches? What does a catcher do behind the plate when Verlander pitches? Does Verlander strike everyone out or ever hit? What do the other eight players do when anyone else pitches. Do they score or drive in runs? Put Verlander in San Francisco this year with their anemic run support. It takes a team to win games, win a division, wild card,a league championship and world series. Individual awards are over rated. When a pitcher plays another position a couple of times between starts then he can be considered most valuable.
Robots should play the games. No names or numbers. Just kidding about the robots. Bring back the PEDs. Barry we miss you.
September 16th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
Put Verlander in San Francisco this year with their anemic run support.
Love it!
September 16th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
@58; Joe D. played in a much tougher ballpark. He also was far superior defensively (Allen made 41 errors at 3B).
September 16th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
@114 Lawrence-
Dropo never again approached the numbers he put up in
1950 at Fenway. As for offensive context, he probably spent
the rest of his career trying to figure a way to bottle it.
As for Jackie Robinson, what he did in 1947 was not only huge
for baseball, but even bigger for society.
The debt this country owes him is huge. Without Jackie, maybe
there is no MLK.
There are many wonderful stories about Jackie, here is one of my faves...
Bobby Bragan of the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947 had clashed with Branch
Rickey over the signing of Robinson. He in fact, was one of the players
who signed a petition stating they wouldn't play with him.
Bragan later said that after just one road trip he saw the value of Jackie
as a player and as a man. He changed his mind.
When Branch Rickey died in 1965 Bragan attended his funeral, because he said that Branch Rickey made him a better man.
September 16th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Four pitchers won the MVP award from 1981 to 1992 in the AL.
There are 3 parameters in the Batting Triple Crown, HR/RBI/BA. A 30/100/0.300 set of numbers very often landed that batter in the top 5 in MVP batting (if they received any votes) in that time period. I will list the year, the number of batters meeting those 3 criteria (who recieved votes), their order of finish in the balloting, and the last number is the highest position for a pitcher in the AL. The highest pitcher finished lower than these batters almost every time.
1979 2 (4,5) 6 Flanagan(starter) 3 first place votes, 23 wins
1980 1 (13) 3 Gossage(reliever) 4 first place votes
1981 (strike year) MVP-Rollie Fingers(reliever) 15/28 votes
1982 2 (2,5) 9-Quisenberry(reliever)
1983 3 (2,4,5) 6-Quisenbury(reliever)
1984 none MVP-Willie Hernandez(reliever) 16/28 votes
1985 2 (1,2) 6-Donnie Moore(reliever)
1986 2 (2,4) MVP-Clemens (starter) 19/28 votes, 24 wins
1987 4 (1,4,7,17) 11-Jeff Reardon(reliever)
1988 1 (1) 5-Eckersley(reliever)
1989 none 5-Eckersley(reliever) 3 first place votes
1990 none 3-Clemens(starter) 3 first place votes, 21 wins
1991 3 (1,3,12) 10-Clemens(starter), 18 wins
1992 none MVP-Eckersley(reliever) 15/28 first place votes
1993 3(1,4,5) 9-Jack McDowell(starter) 22 wins
1994 2(1,3) 6-Jimmy Key(starter) 17 wins (shortened strike season)
It appears to me that the voters were biased towards the best hitters even in that time frame when 4 pitchers won the award. You can see how rare it was for the top pitcher to finish higher than the 30/100/0.300 hitters (20%).
I will state my opinion on your four points. Please do not read any insults or attempts to be rude into this. I will try to be as objective and polite as possible.
Stating that pitchers should not be eliminated from consideration because rookies are not. To me, that is a very weak supporting point.
Your point 3, I see as a weak argument based on the number of plate apperances. Both the offense and defense have responsibilities. If you want to base your argument on plate appearances, why not throw out the hitters for consideration? The OBP is 0.320 in the majors. Pitchers are more likely to get batters out. Why don't we eliminate hitters for consideration? Because the offense has its role and the defense has its role.
Points 2 and 4 are clearly your best points, but they deal primarily with Verlander, not the concept of not voting for pitchers in general.
This is what Forbes.com said in an article posted online today about Verlander.
"In baseball’s vast and illustrious history, 25 pitchers have won the Triple Crown of Pitching (Wins, Strikeouts and Earned Run Average) on 36 different occasions. Six pitchers have won both the Triple Crown of Pitching ansd some version of a Most Valuable Player Award seven times."..."However, Justin Verlander could quite possibly become the seventh man to accomplish this feat if the baseball writers can look beyond the inherent biases that constantly affect a pitcher’s candidacy for the Most Valuable Player Award."
Should be an interesting vote. The idea of him getting the MVP is out there in the public eye, and very likely in the thoughts of the writers. That's the first step. It's a very interesting article, but the focus was on Verlander, very little about the historical bias.
September 16th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
I think you need a perfect storm for a pitcher to win, and the AL this year has it:
1) The most obvious hitter, Bautista, a) plays on a mediocre team, and b) was disproportionately spectacular in April and May;
2) The next most obvious hitter, Granderson, has a obvious liability (batting average) that will sway voters--you can argue about whether it should, but the fact is it will;
3) The next most obvious hitters, the three Red Sox players, will split votes;
4) Leaving a starting pitcher who has a) been phenomenal, for b) a division winner that was just barely in the lead till recently, and c) has a couple of special accomplishments to attract further support (the no-hitter, a season with possibly no start of fewer than six innings).
I would vote for Verlander.
September 16th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Phil-
You just nailed it. What you wrote is almost exactly what I have been
thinking for the last 2 days as I have read the comments.
My heart wants Granderson, but I do think that the BA will be enough
of a negative to sway some voters. (as you pointed out).
I wonder though if this may be a scenario where Verlander gets the most
first place votes and doesn't win.
Even though we know wins are overrated, I think that Verlander with
25 wins will win. In this case the writers are still impressed with wins.
If Verlander were to finish with 18 wins, we are not having this discussion.
My order of finish is as follows...
Justin Verlander
Joey Bats
Curtis Granderson
Adrian Gonzales
Dustin Pedroia
Jacoby Ellsbury
September 17th, 2011 at 12:01 am
I'm still bitter that Maddux was shafted out of the '95 mvp. Barry Larkin. Really?
September 17th, 2011 at 12:17 am
@128 Charles.
Good job on the chart.
The A.L. voters did terrible job in MVP voting from 1979-1994. I still don't understand their obsession for giving Relief pitchers 1rst place MVP votes and 3 MVP award to relief pitchers. That's just a terrible job in voting.
1979-should have been Brett or Lynn. Baylor was a terrible choice, he wasn't even the best player on his team. There's no way Flanagan should have received any first place votes for the MVP. He didn't even deserve the Cy Young that year. Eckersly, Koosman, Guidry or John should have won it.
1980-Brett should have had all the first place votes, no-brainer. How the hell did Rich Gossage get 4 first place votes???. I think Reggie even got some first place votes as well.
1981-R. Henderson or Dwight Evans should have won the award that year. Rollie Fingers had a great 2/3 year but he shouldn't have gotten any first place votes let alone 15. Although, you could make a strong case that Fingers deserved the Cy Young that year although Blyleven was probably the best pitcher that year.
1982-I can't see Quisenbury deserving a 9th place MVP finish. The Royals didn't even win the division that year. Yount was an easy choice although someone gave R. Jackson a 1rst place vote??
1983-Quisenbury was amazing that year but I can't see him deserving a 6th place MVP finish when the Royals didn't even win the division. Although, you can make a strong case he deserved the Cy Young that year. He certainly would have been a better choice than Lamar Hoyt. Steib was probably the best A.L. pitcher that year.
1984-W. Hernandez was great but he didn't deserve the MVP. I always thought Trammell deserved it that year. W. Hernandez didn't even deserve the Cy Young that Stieb or Blyleven should have won it.
1985-D. Moore finished 6th in the 1985 MVP??? Why-31 saves an 8-8 record?? That's idiotic, the Angels didn't even win the division that year. Brett or R. Henderson should have won the MVP that year.
1986-Clemens was amazing but Wade Boggs should have won the MVP that year. How the heck did Jim Rice finish third and Boggs 7th when Boggs had a .357/.453/.486 season?? The A.L. writers were a bunch of idiots.
1987-Jeff Reardon had a 4.48 era in 1987 and finished 11th in the MVP race???? Why 31 saves?? This should have been Alan Trammell's award.
1988-Eckersley had a good era in 1988 but he only pitched 72.2 innings that year. This is the beginning of the Larusa style closer and there's no way he deserved a 5th place MVP finish. Boggs' team finished first and he finished 6th with a line of .366/.476/.490.
1989-How does a guy get 3 first place votes and finish 5th in the MVP voting when he only pitched 57 inning that year (Eckersly)?? R. Henderson probably deserved the MVP that year put he was traded mid-season.
1990-Clemens had a great year but R. Henderson's was a little better. Clemens should have won the Cy Young
1991-Ripken was an easy choice, Clemens had another great year.
1992-Terrible job giving Eckersly the MVP that year. F. Thomas probably deserved it. Eckersly didn't even deserve the Cy Young, Clemens or Mussina should have won it that year.
1993-No way did Jack McDowell deserved a 9th place MVP finish. He didn't even deserve the Cy Young that year, Kevin Appier should have won it. John Olerud deserved the MVP that year over F. Thomas. How did Robin Ventura not get a single MVP vote when the White Sox won the division that year?
1994-Jimmy Key was an odd choice for a 6th place finish that year when Cone won the Cy Young. It's rare for a starter to finished ahead of another starter in the MVP vote yet not win the Cy Young. K. Lofton probably deserved the MVP that year.
September 17th, 2011 at 2:24 am
It is dubious whether any player should get extra credit due to by chance being in a position to help a team clinch something. Though if he is better in a clutch/stretch run situation, even if by chance, he should get at least a little credit.
That the hank Aaron award is obscure does not matter. The rules say pitchers are allowed to win, sometimes they do, & if they can contribute more overall though pitching less innings since the '80s, more power to them. It is tough to do.
The article makes the case that pitchers always should be considered, not a tough case. It makes not case that Verlander should win, only that he should be close.
Quality of competition/your division should mean something. BBIP rates pointing to unusual luck must have a bit of weight.
So Fangraph WAR has Verlander well behind, not neck & neck, & Ellsbury ahead of even Joey Bats? People, please tell us: WHY should we habitually use or privilege any WAR system over another without making a very careful argument why one it is better? At least why we should trust the #d in any particular case we are making.
September 17th, 2011 at 6:33 am
After reading these posts, it has demonstrated to me anyway, that who ever wins the award, there will be arguements that will pursue. As there should be.
With that said, IMO, any award given to any player, whether it be MVP, Cy Young,AS appearances, GG's, ect should NOT be given any merit in the course of their careers. Their overall performance, not awards, should be the only criteria reviewed. Awards for the most part=subjectivity.
September 17th, 2011 at 7:37 am
My nominee for MVP - Lloyd McClendon.
Have fun with this one.
September 17th, 2011 at 7:50 am
Seems to me that the MVP results are the cumulative expression of all the voters preconceived notions, preferences, emphasis, and the media evaluation of their performances. There are some who think that the award should be something like "Player of the Year", but oftentimes voters have looked at "Valuable" first. Don Baylor in 1979 is a really good example. Our evaluation of his stats, with the benefit of more modern metrics, might not have placed him higher than fifth or sixth, but if you look closer, you can see he rings the bell in a number of ways that appeal to the voters. He led the league in RBI-something that had great value at that time. Coincidentally, he also led in runs scored. The rest of his offensive stats were impressive. His team won its division (Ken Singleton, who had fairly similar numbers, and was second in the MVP voting, led the first place Orioles). Brett was third, but his power numbers weren't as good and the Royals were edged out by Baylor's Angels. Lynn probably deserved it, but he split some votes with Rice, who was clearly his inferior, and the Red Sox finished third. So, you have the shiny RBI total, a winning team (remember, also, that the Angels were an expansion team that hadn't one anything, and from 1970-77 were sub-500), contemporary evaluation at the time that Baylor really led his team. Baylor got 20 of 28 first place votes-it wasn't close or controversial. We can say they were wrong, but I remember that year acutely (terrible season to be a Yankee fan), and Baylor was unquestionably perceived as the "Most Valuable".
September 17th, 2011 at 8:23 am
If you believe in the old verities (many don't anymore), the most valuable starting pitchers are stoppers. So I went through Detroit's game log and looked at the games Verlander started after a Tigers loss. His overall record:
20 games started
15 wins, 3 losses, 2 no-decisions
155 IP, 103 hits, 153 strikeouts, 28 walks, 31 earned runs
ERA: 1.80
H/9: 5.98
K/BB: 5.46
WHIP: 7.61
Even better than his overall seasonal stats. His no-hitter came after a loss, and 19 of the 20 starts were quality; his only non-quality start was that recent game against Minnesota where he allowed 4 runs in 8 innings but was credited with the win.
Make of this as you will.
September 17th, 2011 at 9:44 am
Since this question has turned more into a debate if Justin Verlander should be the A.L. MVP or even considered for the MVP. My opinion is no he should not. While he is having the best season of his career and probably would be considered the most valuable Detroit Tiger, he still has only been a part of 33 of the tigers 150 games played so far this season. He will probably have at least 2 more quality starts before the season ends, and the playoffs begin. This means he will be a part of 35 out of his teams 162 games or 21 % of his teams games. If you take into account his IP and divide that by 9, then he actually has only been a part of 26 full 9 inning games or 16 % of his teams games. I do not feel that a position player or DH for that matter who only contributed to 16 percent of his teams games would ever be considered for the MVP award or any other award except for the Cy Young award.
September 17th, 2011 at 9:52 am
@132 John Q
Odd that you stopped your list in 1994 considering 1995 is one of the more infamous MVP votes of all time. Voters basically selecting Vaughn over Belle because he was more likable, even though Belle had clearly superior numbers. (though one could make an argument that there were players who were even more deserving that Belle that year)
September 17th, 2011 at 10:02 am
John Z-
Jose Bautista has had 604 PA this year. Assuming he never came to bat in the same inning (unlikely), that means he impacted 604 innings with his bat. The Jays have played 150 games, which works out to 1350 innings. So, Bautista impacted less than 50% of the offensive innings he played in. But, the impact of a batter on an inning is less than that of a pitcher. The pitcher impacts every PA of the inning. The batter impacts his own largely and the rest only potentially and far more limited. Let's assume, then, that Bautista has an impact on 50% of the PA in a given inning in which he bats, which I think is very generous. That brings him down to under 25%.
There is also a defensive, impact, honestly, but I'd need more numbers than are currently at my fingertips to figure that.
The problem with your line of thinking is that you are limiting Verlander's impact to the situations he has an impact on (fair) but not making the same adjustments for batters (unfair).
September 17th, 2011 at 10:15 am
@137
See the last paragraph of my post #42.
September 17th, 2011 at 10:24 am
I find the "slump buster" argument unconvincing. First off, it is still highly dependent on the team. More importantly, isn't the natural counter-argument that a winning streak is just as important to team morale and record? Stringing together W's is certainly a good thing. If Verlander is that much better after losses, then he must be worse after wins.
Again, I'm in the camp that a pitcher can absolutely be deserving of an MVP, and Verlander very well might be it this year. But that argument, to me, doesn't amount to much.
September 17th, 2011 at 10:46 am
I think the stopper argument is germane to Verlander because the Tigers spent much of the year treading water; a starter on such a team who's like an insurance policy against a long losing streak seems especially valuable to me.
Here are Verlander's stats against the Yankees, Red Sox, Devil Rays, Rangers, and Angels: 9 starts, 3 wins, 2 losses, 4 no-decisions, 65.1 IP, 47 hits, 59 K, 18 BB, 19 earned runs, 2.62 ERA. Worse than his overall stats, but still pretty solid.
September 17th, 2011 at 11:10 am
I give slump-buster arguments some attention only because players talk about it all the time--how great it is when their team's starter breaks their losing streak (or prevents one.)
September 17th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Here's my take on it. Everyone has their opinion of course so you can disagree with me all you want but I"ll state my case anyway.
I think Hitters should Always be considered ahead of Pitchers for MVP. As someone pointed out and I agree, if a Pitcher wins MVP, the only thing a hitter can win all year is a Hank Aaron award which frankly no one cares about. If the Hank Aaron Award meant just as much as the Cy Young award, I'd see a different story.
There are many things that this award does NOT say.
1- It should go to the best player in baseball (Bautista arguably)
2- It should go to a player on a playoff team
3- It should only go to a hitter
Here would be the order in which I would select an MVP
1- I always look at hitters amongst playoff teams, such as this year Ellsbury, Granderson, Gonzalez, etc.
2- If no hitter is worthy of getting it (Such as the best hitter on a playoff team overall only hits about .320, 30 homers, 100 RBI), I would probably go towards pitchers on a playoff team that are having Outstanding years.
3- If no hitter or pitcher on a playoff team is having an oustanding year, I would probably go with it to the best overall hitter in baseball assuming his stats basically cremate everyone else's stats.
I know you have to pick 10 players, but I will pick my top 5 players overall for MVP
1- Ellsbury
2- Granderson
3- Verlander
4- Michael Young
5- Bautista
(Possibly 4 and 5 switched)
Again as I pointed out, you have to put in consideration that it does not say whatsoever that the best hitter in baseball should get teh MVP. It is of one's opinion so there is no right or wrong answer to it. Well there could be wrong answers (meaning like Adam Dunn MVP lol)
The Cy Young Award and Rookie of the Year specifically state it goes to the player with the Best Stats. No where in the MVP does it say taht.
And agian, the reason I do not consider pitcher's first is simply because they have their own reward. If Verlander wins MVP (not that he is undeserving of course), then Ellsbury, Granderson, Bautista and all the others get NOTHING.
Feel free to agree or disagree all you want.
September 17th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Also I think the Batters Faced argument is very misleading. It's not necessarily a good thing to judge a pitcher on. Sometimes pitchers face more batters simply because they get into a lot more trouble and have to work their way out of it.
CC Sabathia has thrown 6 less innings than Verlander and has faced 45 more batters.
Carl Pavano has faced more batters this year (in the same number of games started) as Cliff Lee.
September 17th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Right, but in all 700 plate appearances, Bautista has homered. He's never struck out, popped up, or grounded into a double play.
September 17th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
And in all Batters faced, Verlander and all other pitched have retired every single one of them.
September 17th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
*Pitchers
September 17th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
@139 Ed,
I left it at 1994 because that's when Charles' list cut-off.
I always thought Edgar Martinez should have won the 1995 MVP with his .356/.479/.628 line. Albert Belle would have been much better than Mo Vaughn.
I'll continue if you wan't Ed.
1996-Terrible job in voting Juan Gonzalez the MVP. It should have been A-rod or Ken Griffey jr.
1997-Easy choice in Ken Griffey jr. You can make a case for Clemens that year.
1998-Another terrible job in Juan Gonzalez for the MVP. It probably should have been Jeter that year but you can make a case for A-Rod, Nomar or Albert Belle. Any one of the four would have been much better than Juan Gonzalez.
1999-Poor job in giving I-Rod the MVP. It should have been either Manny, Jeter, Pedro or Roberto Alomar.
2000-Not terrible giving the award to Giambi but it probably should have gone to either Pedro or A-Rod.
2001-Giambi should have won this year either he or Bret Boone not Ichiro.
2002-Poor choice in Tejada. It should have been Thome or A-rod.
2003-A-rod was a good choice, you can make a case for Beltran.
2004-Vlad was a good pick but Ichiro probably deserved it with his .372/.414/.455 line. Michael Young's 8th place finish is kind of odd in retrospect.
2005-A-Rod was an easy choice. Why did Scott Podsednik finish 12th with 0 HR and a .290 avg. ????
2006-Morneau was a bad choice, he wasn't even the best player on his team. Either Mauer of Jeter should have won it that year. Frank Thomas as a DH with a .270 avg. getting a 4th place finish was odd that year.
2007-A-rod was an easy choice. Maglio would have won any other year.
2008-Mauer should have won it that year. K-Rod was an poor choice for a 6th place finish.
2009-Mauer was an easy choice.
2010-Josh Hamilton was a good choice. Delmon Young was an odd 10th place finish with a .333 on base percentage.
September 17th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
@ 150 John Q. Thanks, didn't see where you were responding to someone else's post. BTW, anyone who says that Lofton deserved the MVP in 1994 is A-OK in my book. It's amazing how much better his season was than Ichiro's in 2001, both playing essentially the same role on their teams and facing similar competition from other candidates. Yet somehow Ichiro won in 2001 and Lofton was 4th in 1994.
September 17th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
I think pitchers can win the MVP, but I don't see how Verlander's season warrants it. He's been very, very good, but he isn't blowing away the competition. James Shields has ELEVEN complete games this season to Verlander's four. Verlander is leading in several statistical categories, but he's not well ahead in any of them. So, I think he should probably get the Cy Young, but not the MVP.
Bautista, on the other hand, should be the MVP. His 8.4 WAR puts him ahead of Verlander and WELL ahead of the next position player (Ellsbury at 7.1). I've also never liked the "his team isn't good so he shouldn't be an MVP" argument (not that you necessarily made it)
If anything, being on a so-so team makes him all the more valuable to them because he is Toronto's go-to guy. Toronto also would likely be a better team if they didn't play in the toughest division in baseball.
September 17th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
only if the pitcher hits 7 hr and bats 300 like don drysdale did in 1968 should he be considered for the award.
September 17th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
@140 BSK, here is how I would handle this. Many studies have shown that the responsibility for the results of a PA are split essentially 50/50 between the pitcher and the batter. So I would take Verlander's 17% of Tiger's innings and divide by 2. (I use innings, not PA, to give him credit for facing fewer batters/IP.) Add a little for his fielding and batting and we get 9%. This has to be reduced because some of his pitching results are really fielding. So maybe 8% for Verlander.
For batters we start with half of 11% and add on the fielding. A team sees very roughly 4200 balls in play in a season. Of which roughly 700, 1/6 go to or by the SS. I doubt that as few as 575 of those are routine hits plus routine outs. That leaves at most 125 balls in a season for a SS to demonstrate skill above a floor that is much lower than any team would accept as a starting or backup SS. That 125 is about 3% of BIP and what I will use for the maximum influence of a player on defense. For a corner outfielder/1B it is probably more like 1%. 2B/3B/CF in between. Can't use this method for catchers, but I would put them at at least 3%. That gets the max possible involvement of a position player who is a SS and plays every day at about 8.5%, or just a little more than a starting pitcher who won't pitch more than 250 innings.
September 17th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
If it were up to me, the rules would be updated, and that update would be: a player has to have participated in some minimum number of plays to be considered.
That would weed out the closers..."what exactly was the rest of my team doing today that got me into this game with a 3 run lead and 3 outs to go"
...come and get it.
September 17th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
The need for the nesnhab rule change, by the way, has existed for a long, long time.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/konstji01.shtml
The root of the problem, I think, is a misconstruction of the word "valuable." For some reason, the majority of sportswriters have always construed it to have the same meaning as the word "important," but the two are not the same.
By the way...does anyone know exactly what the official rules for the award are (besides that pitchers are eligible)?
September 17th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
@151 Ed,
Lofton's 1994 season kind of gets overlooked with all the other things that were going on in 1994 but he hit .349/.412/.536 and played gold glove center field. He was on pace to get 230 hits and 150 runs scored and steal 85 bases.
Lofton was one of the top 10 players in baseball from 1992-1999 but is underrated I think because he bounced around so much during the latter stages of his career.
Lead-off hitters have historically done pretty poorly in MVP voting in MLB history. Mainly it's because things like getting on base and run scoring have been undervalued for many years. Just looking back in the last 30 years, R. Henderson probably deserved 3-4 MVP awards, Boggs probably should have won 2-3, Raines should have won an MVP award, Lofton deserved an MVP award, Jeter should have won an MVP award.
September 17th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
Rich: it is WAR on THIS site that has Bautista #1. It was noted above that Ellsbury was #1, & Verlander. I am strongly against 1 WAR system being cited as accurate, in this case B-R because it is from this Web Site. I have no idea what system of overall value is more accurate. And I think only a tiny % of folks can even make a good argument either way.
Things like position adjustment, defense, walks, base running & other things are weighed differently. I think a tougher schedule should be considered when relevant. For example, if Bautista faces tougher pitching overall, give him proportionate credit. But not for being amongst better hitters, since he does not face them. Of course, one effects the others stats, so it can be tough to extricate.
Please, if anybody gives a WAR argument & #s, either 1) site all systems so we can average them or research which might be more accurate, or better yet 2) Tell us why one WAR is the best, at least in a particular case you are citing.
And I await the thread honest & transparent enough to discuss tof topic is what WAR & total value system is most accurate, or in which cases, & exactly WHY.
Thank you for listening all. I will continue to regularly argue for this open discussion here when relevant approximately (looks at watch)....Forever. 😉 Or until this is implemented, which ever comes first.
September 17th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
In the 1st sentence above, I meant to type that according to Fangraphs WAR, Ellsbury is easily #1, & Verlander is clearly lower rated than on B-R WAR.
September 17th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
Andy -- obviously a great post because look at all the discussion! Is there a record for most responses?
@156 -- I think you need to tell us what the difference is between "valuable" and "important", because i actaully think they're almost identical in this case. (you also need to define nesnhab)
When it comes to MVP voting, i think in some years when there's no clear winner, we focus too much on stats and forget or don't realize or don't remember what "valuable" or "important" looks like. And i think "valuable" is exactly what the award is and should be all about.
A few of you have touched upon this idea, but i feel the need to elaborate. Seems to me we often make the mistake, especially when looking at past seasons (but sometimes in the present too) of forgetting that a player may have done some amazing things during the season that don't necessarily show up in the stats or stick in our brains as clearly, 50 years (or sometimes 3 months) later -- and maybe that's why they won and/or even deserved the award.
Sometimes we ask, how the heck did Larkin get MVP in 1995 or Versailles in '65 or Campanella in '51 ? -- because we don't realise or else forget that maybe they had, over the course of a season, a dozen game-winning hits, catches, throws, etc. that made a big impression on fans, teams and sportswriters, and earned that player "valuable" status points in all their minds -- and deservedly so, especially if those valuable plays occurred in big games and/or pennant races.
Using Campy and 1951 as an example: I don't know for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if he made some big plays against the Giants that year, and can you imagine the roar of the crowd and his teammates, the headlines in the paper, and the talk on NY radios when those big plays happened? -- and if it was a game-winning homer, the obvious result in the won-loss coulmns?
Or if Versailles turned an amazing double-play to end a big game against the Yankees in July of 1965, we might not remember that in 2011, but fans in Minnesota and writers everywhere probably did. Maybe that's why some players receive -- and sometimes deserve -- the award. Because they're truly valuable and/or are perceived that way. (While it's also true that an exciting, game-ending double play that won a game against the Yankees in July may or may not have been any more strategically important than another win over, say, Baltimore in September, who's to say that the psychological boost of a key win at a key time wasn't incredibly valuable at the moment? This is similar, i guess, to Andy's comments about Verlander being a "stopper", and i think he's right: players do talk about those things and those psychological boosts are important to a team's success.
Other, more real examples of MVPs who were truly valuable/important:
--Yaz in '67 may or may not have had the most impressive stats that year, but either way, it was clear that he was the heart and soul of the Sox and that he carried the team on his back all year, especially during the last few weeks in a tight pennant race
--According to #136 above, Baylor might be another example
--Ichiro in 2001 electrified the city of Seattle and almost certainly inspired his teammates; also scared countless shortstops into rushing throws and, when he was in the field, prevented countless baserunners from even thinking about taking an extra base, throwing out many of those who foolishly tried. Of course, great hitting numbers and steals also helped, but my point here is the psychological value he had too.
--Fingers in 1981 might be the extremely rare example of not only a pitcher, but also a closer, who actually deserved the MVP award. Hold on, don't crucify me yet. I said maybe. But he was definitely, without-a-doubt, extremely important to the Brewers, who made their first-ever playoff appearance that year. Aside from his sparkling stats, saves, amazing ERA, etc., he was incredibly valuable for at least three additional reasons that any Brewers fan and most players, managers, and sportswriters knew in 1981, that most of you probably don't know today:
--In the late 70s and 80s, the Brewers were an up-and-coming, young team that was known for scoring lots of runs (remember Bambi's Bombers and Harvey's Wallbangers?) but losing way too many games because of lousy pitching, especially in the bullpen. When the Brewers acquired Fingers in the pre-1981 offseason, the psychological boost of finally having a good, reliable closer was huge! Not just for fans, of course. Starters like Caldwell and Haas didnt have to worry about their leads disappearing if they left the game, manager Buck Rodgers (ugghhh!) could use his bullpen differently, etc. -- and on top of that, Fingers actually lived-up to his promise
--The Brewers were also a small-market expansion team that had only been around 10 years, and hadnt really had any marquee players ever (Don Money was about it, Yount and Molitor were still young, Aaron was on last legs in '76-77, same with Bando in '77, but those last two helped a little bit) so getting Fingers was also a huge boost in that sense. It definitely boosted everyone's confidence ("wow, we've got some "real" players now!"), possibly improving his teammates performance, attracting more fans, making the ballpark more exciting, giving management more money to spend, helping lure other free agents, etc. -- not to overstate his value, but you get the idea, and sometimes perceived value can be almost as valuable as the real thing (whatever that means, ha!)
--Let's not forget the psychological value that a closer (or in some cases, a dominant starter -- Verlander?) can have on the other teams' players and managers. In Fingers' case, Brewers opponents now had to face the prospect of seeing Fingers close out the 8th and 9th innings of games, certainly thinking on many occasions, "Shoot, Fingers is out there waiting in the bullpen, if we don't get some runs soon, we're screwed!" (think Mariano Rivera the past 15 years)-- and certainly affecting game-strategy as well. In a Koufax' case (or Verlander?), this would be, "Shoot, we gotta face him tomorrow?! We better play small ball and pray for 1 or 2 runs!" Even if the pitcher doesn't have his best stuff that day, or if the closer doesn't even leave the bullpen that day (!) -- the psychological effect and game-strategy-influences can be very valuable indeed.
Wow! -- I didnt plan on making a case for either Fingers or closers as MVPs, but i think i just did -- in very rare situations only.
Getting back to my original point, i think...
Our new, modern stats are wonderful and more accurate and keep getting better, but some things just can't be measured, even though they're still incredibly "valuable."
***WARNING: MAIN POINT FINALLY COMING UP, IN A NUTSHELL ***
And, you may ask, what exactly does "valuable" mean? I'm not sure, but we all know it when we see fans holding signs or chanting "MVP!" for some players but not for others. We know true value when we see it, but some years it's more apparent than others.
What does all this have to do with Verlander or 2011? Not much, maybe, since this particular year does actually seem to be more about stats, unless someone like Longoria (or Pujols in N.L.) goes absolutely crazy in next two weeks and carries their team to the playoffs, ala Yaz in '67 -- then we could ALL agree on who was most valuable/important (maybe)
But i do think Verlander and pitchers should always be viewed as eligible for the MVP award, especially if they have that "valuable" aura about them. (I forget, did Fernando win the award in '81 ? That's the kind of aura i mean) Does Verlander have more of that than anyone else this year? I don't know, maybe. Are they holding up signs for him in the stands? Do his teammates and opponents feel that way?
"O shoot, we gotta face him tomorrow?!...
September 18th, 2011 at 12:41 am
I answered my own question about Fernando in '81. He didnt win and it looks like Schmidt deserved it with an amazing 1.080 OPS, but Fernando is still a good example of that aura and "value" that i'm talking about, even if Schmidt was even more valuable that year.
And i see that Rickey finished a close second behind Fingers in '81 with pretty darn good numbers, but i'll still take Fingers (333 ERA+ and .0872 WHIP, led league in saves) and all those wonderful, valuable intangibles he brought to the bullpen every day -- yes, every day.
And yes, Virginia, closers can and should win the MVP award -- but only once in a blue moon (and maybe not anymore, now that they never throw 3-4 innings any more, let alone 2).
But starters, definitely yes, and Verlander maybe -- if we start seeing teammates and opponents holding up MVP signs! 🙂
September 18th, 2011 at 2:29 am
161- maybe in 1981 they should have divided the MVP between the two halves of the season, as they did the standings. Rickey wins the first half MVP and Rollie the second half.
September 18th, 2011 at 2:32 am
Starting pitchers definitely do deserve MVP awards, as evidence by the above mentioned plate appearance argument. However, they usuallly don't get it because they already have the Cy Young. I think they should probably change the rule to make only non-pitchers eligible for MVP, because the most valuable starting is really the most valuable player every year. Oh, and relief pitchers are nowhere near as valuable as starting pitchers.
September 18th, 2011 at 2:38 am
Surprised that no one is mentioning Granderson for MVP here. He's leading the league is runs scored and RBI while batting mostly second. I'm sure people will say he had more RBI opportunities than Bautista, but I just added it up, using stats you can find on Baseball Reference. Divide the number of RBI by the plate appearances plus baserunners, which would be the number of RBI a guy would get if he homered in every plate appearance, and Granderson has a higher percentage than Bautista. Of course, Bautista draws more walks, but those walks obviously aren't as valuable as Granderson's hits because they are not resulting in RBI or runs, so maybe Bautista should swing at more pitches.
September 18th, 2011 at 2:43 am
Another point about MVP award, there is no official criteria, and the writers change there unofficial criteria all the time, often depending on which players they get along with. Guys like Ted Williams and Albert Belle were denied MVP awards simply because the writers didn't like them.
September 18th, 2011 at 2:58 am
@152, Rich -- That is not a logical argument. No matter which players are eligible for the award, the possibility exists that none of them "blow the others away" in any category. And yet, someone has to get the award.
It is not necessary for a hitter to stand head-and-shoulders above the other hitters in order to win the MVP. Why should it be necessary for a pitcher to do so?
September 18th, 2011 at 3:03 am
@156, neshnaB natS -- In case your question hasn't been answered:
According to a post on The Platoon Advantage, here are the BBWAA criteria for the MVP Award:
“The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931: (1) actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense; (2) number of games played; (3) general character, disposition, loyalty and effort; (4) former winners are eligible; and (5) members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.”
http://www.platoonadvantage.com/2011/09/blogfight-should-pitchers-win-mvp.html
September 18th, 2011 at 3:04 am
(Crud, I misspelled your eman....)
September 18th, 2011 at 3:08 am
Assuming those criteria I posted @167 are correct, isn't it interesting that the word "value" is used only in the context of "value of a player to his team"? (emphasis added)
Not "...to his team in their successful pursuit of the pennant."
Not "...to his team in a pennant chase that fell short."
Just "...to his team."
September 18th, 2011 at 4:02 am
Tradition, tradition, tradition.
I am sick of it by those who never left 19th century.
In fact, in the past pitchers won MVPs. Why an argument?
So many people who want to dwell in the past...
September 18th, 2011 at 7:13 am
JA, excellent call on parsing the name at 156, I would not have realized that so quickly.
The Larry Walker HOF post had over 400 comments, but no other post has had more than about 250. This one ranks in the top 10.
September 18th, 2011 at 7:13 am
@170, you're right. We should spend less time debating actual baseball rules and performance, and more time killing umpires.
September 18th, 2011 at 7:55 am
How can we "equalize" pitchers and batters to get a pitcher into consideration.
What do we expect starting pitchers to do? Win games.
Ratio = wins/162 or (team wins in games started)/162. Maybe a minor adjustment if they exceed the expected 32-33 starts.
What do we want relievers to do? Save games/don't give up any runs
Ratio=(saves+wins-runs credited to reliever-inherited runs scored)/162. Maybe earned runs credited to reliever instead of runs.
What do we want batters to do? Get on base and score.
ratio=(H/(team hits) or (R/team runs) or (RBI/team RBI) or (TOB/(team TOB) or whatever ratio makes the batter look good. Another possibility is to use avg. league team values.
Very simple, understandable equations based on expectations, and can be tweaked, just to be used to get a pitcher past the initial hurdle and into the MVP race. Then throw in your other arguments like leading the league in certain stats or whatever you want to use to argue for that pitcher.
September 18th, 2011 at 9:07 am
@169 John Autin, only one placekicker has ever won the NFL MVP award, and that was Mark Moseley in a strike shortened season.
The NFL voters seem to instinctively grasp the difference between the guys who stand on the field and grind it out and the guys who pick up on the fruits of their labor (albeit some pick up on it better than others).
What is the matter with baseball writers? I remember a New York writer named George King matter of factly stated that his reason for not voting Pedro Martinez in 1999 was that he didn't think a "starting" pitcher should be eligible for the award.
And, why couldn't someone have just overruled him for violating the privilege?
September 18th, 2011 at 9:11 am
@165, the MVP voting has traditionally been a forum for the bad sportswriters to (a) vent or (b) atone. You cite Ted Williams and Albert Belle but there's also Willie Stargell (1979) and Andre Dawson (1987).
September 18th, 2011 at 9:18 am
I'm tweaking the starting pitcher ratio.
ratio= (Games started - personal losses)/162
September 18th, 2011 at 9:50 am
@167 and 169
Thanks for sharing the verbiage for those of us too lazy to look it up, and good point about "value to team" only.
But #3 is even weirder: "general character, disposition, loyalty and effort"
I guess that gets some of those sorry-a$$ vindictive writers off the hook for snubbing guys like Williams, Belle, etc -- at least in their minds.
September 18th, 2011 at 10:04 am
Charles -- Despite the fact that intangibles can sometimes be really important, i kinda like your idea of a screening process with standards, even if that's what most of us already do in our minds with our own internal standards. The devil, as they say, would be in the details -- and league averages for that year.
And then we could/should look at the other factors and intangibles, after the screening process.
Verlander would certainly pass any reasonable screen test, as long as you're not in the no-pitchers-ever camp. Have we established that as the minority opinion yet? Seems like we have.
September 18th, 2011 at 10:16 am
Can a pitcher deserve to win the league MVP award?
Only if position players such as Adam Dunn and Choke Figgins can become eligible for pitching awards, since they've made every pitcher look like Cy Young.
While I'm aware that by rule pitchers are eligible for the most valuable PLAYER award, I am also aware that I have never once heard any fan ever refer to Walter Johnson, Tom Seaver, or Pedro Martinez as great players, only as great pitchers.
September 18th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Not a screening process, really. Just a general rule of thumb. The voting will always be subjective and sports writers might have to feel some obligation to reveal and defend their choices to their readers. The question is, can Verlander be considered a contender for a #1 position on the ballot. My answer is, if a starting pitcher can be a factor in XX% of the team games, why is that not comparable to a hitter who accounted for XX% of the offensive production? Personally, I was very biased towards hitters until I gave it some serious thought. A blanket, "no way for pitchers" is too easy and avoids what many consider a serious debate this year with Verlander. My math won't convince those voters, but those with an open mind should give it some serious thought, and for those who would argue for Verlander, it's a little more ammunition to defend their choice for him. If anyone can explain the fallacy in the math, I'd love to hear it.
September 18th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
I voted for too soon to tell because in this tight race any one guy could get hot in the remaining few games and put himself over the top.
Also, is there any stat that considers WHO a pitcher has struck out. If half of Verlander's Ks came against Dunn or Reynolds, then they should count for less. 😉
September 18th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
The Cy Young Award and Rookie of the Year specifically state it goes to the player with the Best Stats.
No, they do not.
***
Many studies have shown that the responsibility for the results of a PA are split essentially 50/50 between the pitcher and the batter.
Any links? This is something I've often wondered about, and assumed it would have been studied, but I don't remember ever seeing anything on it.
***
By the way...does anyone know exactly what the official rules for the award are (besides that pitchers are eligible)?
Expanding somewhat on JA's earlier response:
There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.
The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:
1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.
2. Number of games played.
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
4. Former winners are eligible.
5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.
You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from one to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot.
Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, and that includes pitchers and designated hitters.
Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.
***
Surprised that no one is mentioning Granderson for MVP here.
He's been mentioned a half-dozen times.
those walks obviously aren't as valuable as Granderson's hits because they are not resulting in RBI or runs, so maybe Bautista should swing at more pitches.
So he can win the Tim MVP? Maybe it's more important to try winning games.
Another point about MVP award, there is no official criteria
See above.
September 18th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
@ 166
Cause pitchers have their own award. The originator of this post saying hitters have their own (the Hank Aaron award) is a joke. No one takes that award as being that valuable.
Here's another component: any AL pitcher should NEVER be in line for an MVP since they only play defense except in NL parks.
September 19th, 2011 at 12:55 am
@179 -- Linguistic legerdemain -- what fun! Let me have a try:
I've only heard Ted Williams called a great hitter, not a great player. Therefore, his 1946 & '49 MVP Awards were undeserved.
September 19th, 2011 at 12:59 am
@182, JT -- Thanks for finding the full text of the MVP guidelines.
About the "responsibility-for-the-PA split": I recall a recent finding of ~ 50% hitter / 37% pitcher / 13% fielders. I can't give a link, but it stuck in my mind because it's virtually the same proportion used by Strat-O-Matic.
September 19th, 2011 at 1:02 am
@183 Let's say that we agree with your statement about AL pitchers.
It must follow that DHer's should be ineligible because they don't play defense.
I'm sorry, but I must disagree with your reasoning.
The difference between the best and worse defense in the majors is 3.2 Runs/game to 5.2. The range in errors 66 vs 126, DP 108 to 155, fielding percent 0.978 to 0.988 does not account for a 2 run range. If an MVP voting sportswriter lists a non-pitcher as #1 on his ballot, the defensive output is not the primary reason. It appears that you would be OK if an NL pitcher is #1 on a ballot. Why would you expect a sports writer to consider whether a pitcher bats? It's two separate ballots. Voting is conducted by 2 sports writers from cities with teams in the league. Your comment simply makes me believe you don't like the DH rule.
September 19th, 2011 at 1:05 am
@182 JT, I can't give you links because, 1), I'm so bad at this interweb stuff that I couldn't give you links if they bit my ... keyboard. (Still got that onion on my belt.) 2), The main research I remember was in The Book, by Tango, Lichtman and Diamond, not on the web.
September 19th, 2011 at 8:37 am
Any AL MVP voter who actively avoids voting for pitchers because they don't bat should show the the League the courtesy and remove himself from the list of voters.
September 19th, 2011 at 10:24 am
Thanks Kds, I read The Book but I don't remember that at all. I will take a look.
JA/185 -- that 50/37/13 split sounds to me like the average breakdown in overall value from offense, pitching, and fielding, but I don't know if that applies to who has more influence over any individual PA. If a .300 hitter faces a pitcher with an opponents' BA of .200, what is the expected outcome? (Ignoring any reasons why one particular batter might match up well or poorly against one particular pitcher, just looking at all .300 vs .200 matchups.) If they have equal influence, the batter should hit .250 (given enough PA).
September 19th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
0.250 is fine without any other information.
It's also expected to be true, if the batters faced by the pitcher is the same as the plate appearances by the batter.
He'll drift below 0.250 towards 0.200 if the BFP is much greater than PA. The pitcher has shown from a large pool of players, that he can hold players to 0.200. Assuming a bell-shaped distribution, 0.300 hitter would be a small percentage of those players the pitcher faced. Any new member of the pool will likely drift towards 0.200 as his number of bats increase.
If PA is much greater than BFP, he's more likely to be over 0.250 and closer to 0.300.
If we know the league batting average, that's a different story. Assuming both have played a significant amount of playing time, if the league BA is 0.200, he should hit 0.300. If the league BA is 0.300, he should hit 0.200.
September 19th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
@179 eliminates the great pitchers.
@184 eliminates the great hitters.
I guess that leaves great utility PLAYERS.
The best one I can think of was a player for the Cards in 2001, but he was a rookie and they have their own award.
September 19th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
I hate the DH rule but I don't mind DH's being considered for the MVP awards.
I have far greater concerns about short relievers winning the award, but "number of games played" is one of the sacred criteria and relievers undoubtedly do play a greater "number" of games than starters.
September 19th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
You should check out the poll results at the top.
September 19th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Lump me in with the people commenting vis-a-vis the Hank Aaron hitters have their own award crowd.
Really ? The Hank Aaron award ? About the only thing anyone can tell you about it is who it's named after.
There are 4 awards that count and have any weight:
CY - pitchers
MOY - managers
MVP - should be an everyday player
ROY - should be equally weighted between pos players and pitchers
September 22nd, 2011 at 9:29 am
@113: the metric fails when you have dominant *pitching*, not a dominant pitcher. Also when you have terrible pitching in general, it will overrate the good pitchers.
Suppose you have a team like SFG this year, with 4 excellent starters, and a lot of good relievers, but terrible offense. the Giants this year have average a 115 ERA+ for their entire pitching staff! Only 1 starter is under ERA+110 (the 100IP 5th guy), and none of their relievers are. OTOH, their run support has been atrocious. Lincecum's has been a meager 2.82, but their average isn't much better at 3.55.
So, what you'll note about this team is that they win despite terrible offense, because with rare exceptions, they are sending excellent pitchers to the mound. Not just Lincecum, but everbody else as well. When you compare a teams wins with a pitcher, to a team's wins without that pitcher, what you are really comparing is how well that team did, compared to how well the rest of the team's pitchers did. If the rest of your team's pitching is terrible, you will look good even if you are average. If the rest of your team's pitching is excellent, you will look average even if you are Tim Lincecum. And of course, getting below average run support even from your own team will affect this metric as well.
Basically, wins over team is a decent (but not all that great) metric to compare pitchers on the same team, but a terrible one to use to compare pitchers on different teams.
the key problems aren't even about how good the offense on your team is, it's how good the overall pitching is. Check out this metric for Braves pitchers when Maddux Smolz and Glavine were all going strong (it will underrate them severely). Or for any pitcher who was the only ace on a really weak pitching staff (it will overrate them).
September 26th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
scrabble finder...
[...]Can a pitcher deserve to win the league MVP award? » Baseball-Reference Blog » Blog Archive[...]...