Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Now we can start the debate on pitchers versus everyday players receiving the MVP. I'm against it unless the pitcher has the kind of season Gibson and McLain had in 1968.
Interesting post from Midlo Dad in Virginia forum:
Midlo Dad
HSBBWeb Old Timer
Posted November 21, 2011 04:12 PM Hide Post
This is much deserved for him and hopefully will also continue to draw attention to the high talent level we have here in our area.
I'm glad he overcame the bias some have against considering pitchers for this award. The standard line is that a starting pitcher only has a shot at helping you win once every five days. There are many holes in this argument.
First, the very best offensive player only makes a substantial difference in some games, not all of them. Unless you count the impact of being pitched around, etc.
But if you do that, then consider this:
The day before Verlander's starts, Leyland knows he can go to his bullpen early and often, because tomorrow he won't need them much.
The day Verlander starts, the team most likely is going to win.
The day after Verlander starts, the bullpen is fresh again.
And the bullpen never has to worry about getting used almost every day, so even the other 2 days of the cycle are favorably affected. If the Braves had had that going for them, they wouldn't have had O'Flaherty, Venters and Kimbrell all hit the wall in September, they could've held on for the wild card, and who knows who would've ended up winning the World Series.
Much is made of Verlander's winning the "pitcher's triple crown" of wins, K's and ERA. Really it should be a "quadruple crown" that includes innings pitched. How long has it been since someone threw that many innings so effectively?
Midlo Dad
HSBBWeb Old Timer
Posted November 21, 2011 04:12 PM Hide Post
This is much deserved for him and hopefully will also continue to draw attention to the high talent level we have here in our area.
I'm glad he overcame the bias some have against considering pitchers for this award. The standard line is that a starting pitcher only has a shot at helping you win once every five days. There are many holes in this argument.
First, the very best offensive player only makes a substantial difference in some games, not all of them. Unless you count the impact of being pitched around, etc.
But if you do that, then consider this:
The day before Verlander's starts, Leyland knows he can go to his bullpen early and often, because tomorrow he won't need them much.
The day Verlander starts, the team most likely is going to win.
The day after Verlander starts, the bullpen is fresh again.
And the bullpen never has to worry about getting used almost every day, so even the other 2 days of the cycle are favorably affected. If the Braves had had that going for them, they wouldn't have had O'Flaherty, Venters and Kimbrell all hit the wall in September, they could've held on for the wild card, and who knows who would've ended up winning the World Series.
Much is made of Verlander's winning the "pitcher's triple crown" of wins, K's and ERA. Really it should be a "quadruple crown" that includes innings pitched. How long has it been since someone threw that many innings so effectively?
For those sabermetrically inclined, Verlander was tied with Jose Bautista (3rd place) for the AL lead in bWAR with an 8.5. Jacoby Ellsbury, who narrowly finished 2nd in voting, had a 7.2 bWAR. However, Ellsbury had a 9.4 fWAR, Bautista an 8.3 fWAR and Verlander a 7.0 fWAR.
Voting was appropriately close, in my opinion.
I will reserve comment here because I have a personal connection with the Verlanders (was teammates with Justin's little brother for a summer) so my opinion might be biased. I will say this: I believe Verlander's season was substantially better than Eckersley's MVP season in 1992, but not of the same caliber of Pedro in 2000, when he finished 2nd in the MVP voting behind Pudge Rodriguez.
Voting was appropriately close, in my opinion.
I will reserve comment here because I have a personal connection with the Verlanders (was teammates with Justin's little brother for a summer) so my opinion might be biased. I will say this: I believe Verlander's season was substantially better than Eckersley's MVP season in 1992, but not of the same caliber of Pedro in 2000, when he finished 2nd in the MVP voting behind Pudge Rodriguez.
Verlander had a monster year, certainly as good as Clemens the year he was MVP.
However, I believe they have their award and the MVP should be an every day position player.
I get the sabermetrics and the affect a starter has in giving his Team the opportunity to win that day. But still, he only starts less than 35 times during the year (21.6% of the total games played) while the position candidate likely played over 95% of the games contested.
I really think what Ellsbury did for Boston, from the lead off spot, was nothing short of spectacular!
However, I believe they have their award and the MVP should be an every day position player.
I get the sabermetrics and the affect a starter has in giving his Team the opportunity to win that day. But still, he only starts less than 35 times during the year (21.6% of the total games played) while the position candidate likely played over 95% of the games contested.
I really think what Ellsbury did for Boston, from the lead off spot, was nothing short of spectacular!
I always felt the MVP award should go to an everyday player, the Cy Young belonging to pitchers.
However, my understanding was that Verlander not only excelled at his position, but he also was a difference maker in game outcomes, not just on the day he pitched, as pointed out by Midlo, thus receiving the votes that he did.
My son's agent is same as Verlander's so I do admit in this case, I am most likely being biased.
Congratulations to JV!
However, my understanding was that Verlander not only excelled at his position, but he also was a difference maker in game outcomes, not just on the day he pitched, as pointed out by Midlo, thus receiving the votes that he did.
My son's agent is same as Verlander's so I do admit in this case, I am most likely being biased.
Congratulations to JV!
I'm with Prime9. Pitchers already have the CY. I'd be willing to go with a pitcher when they have a historical season (such as McLain, or Gibson) and/or the competition is kind of "meh" but that really wasn't the case this year. I would have given the award to Ellsbury.
I was a pitcher back in the day and I have been a Tigers fan all my life, but I have to agree - I believe the Cy Young IS the MVP for pitchers so I don't feel they should be eligible.
Verlander certainly WAS the most valuable player in baseball this year, for many reasons (including those posted by "YesReally").....but I'd like to see an everyday position player win the award.
Verlander certainly WAS the most valuable player in baseball this year, for many reasons (including those posted by "YesReally").....but I'd like to see an everyday position player win the award.
If Guidry didn't win in 1978 or Mariano Rivera ever, then no pitcher should win it (my inner yankee fan emerges). I don't think a starter should ever win it. They only play in 20% of the games. I actually like the Ellsbury argument better. He is the only member of that horrible team from the north that manned up in September.
I understand why some feel no pitcher should win the award but it does state in the rules for voting that all players, including pitchers and DH's, are eligible for consideration.
The award is the Most Valuable Player. To me that means not necessarily who was the best player, but which player had the biggest positive influence on their team. I realize that is extremely hard to gauge and probably more hard to gauge than simply the best player in the league. But I think they got it right because:
From early May through mid-August, the Tigers had a 50-40 stretch in which they went 17-3 in Verlander's starts and 33-37 in all other games.
Also, even the best position players in the league get around 700 plate appearances the whole year. Verlander faced about 950 batters this year. So while he only played a fifth of the games his impact was still great.
And as a previous poster mentioned, he took a lot of pressure off the bullpen.
--------------------
The award is the Most Valuable Player. To me that means not necessarily who was the best player, but which player had the biggest positive influence on their team. I realize that is extremely hard to gauge and probably more hard to gauge than simply the best player in the league. But I think they got it right because:
From early May through mid-August, the Tigers had a 50-40 stretch in which they went 17-3 in Verlander's starts and 33-37 in all other games.
Also, even the best position players in the league get around 700 plate appearances the whole year. Verlander faced about 950 batters this year. So while he only played a fifth of the games his impact was still great.
And as a previous poster mentioned, he took a lot of pressure off the bullpen.
--------------------
quote:Originally posted by OnWabana:
"The award is the Most Valuable Player. To me that means not necessarily who was the best player, but which player had the biggest positive influence on their team."
First, since you cite the rules for who is eligible to counter my (and others') opinion that pitchers generally should not be voted the MVP (not an absolute, which you incorrectly imply that I/we mean by citing to eligibility rules), let me point out that those rules do not define "valuable" to mean what you suggest. In fact I believe the term is left undefined, for the voter to figure out for himself or herself.
But even on your terms ("biggest positive influence" on their team, or on winning), there is a advanced stat for that that is readily accessible on Fangraphs. It is called Win Probability Added (or WPA). Verlander did lead all MLB pitchers in that stat (with 5.14), but still finished behind Ellsbury (5.66) and seven others - he would be tied for 9th in MLB with Ryan Howard. That's darn good for a guy who only played in 21% of his team's games, for sure - but it also speaks to the more limited value a starting pitcher necessarily has when compared to an MVP-caliber position player.
I'm not suggesting WPA is the way to measure an MVP (that was your definition, not mine) but it is a component worth looking at. I'd put more weight on WAR, and Ellsbury led all of MLB in WAR with 9.4. That's the highest WAR by a CF since Ken Griffey, Jr. (also with 9.4 WAR) unanimously won the AL MVP in 1997. [Verlander finished with 7.0 WAR, third among MLB pitchers behind Roy Halladay (8.2) and C.C. Sabathia (7.1) and ahead of NL Cy Young winner Clayton Kershaw (6.8); on a list of all pitchers and position players, Verlander's WAR would have been tied for 10th with Curtis Granderson.]
quote:"Also, even the best position players in the league get around 700 plate appearances the whole year. Verlander faced about 950 batters this year. So while he only played a fifth of the games his impact was still great."
I'm not trying to knock Justin Verlander's fantastic season, and I certainly believe he was a deserving winner of the Cy Young.
BUT, I need to point out that you are overstating the argument you are making here, because you are necessarily assuming that Verlander is solely responsible for what happened in each of those 950 (actually 969) PA/BF. You can make an argument that he is solely responsible for each of the "three true outcome" events - a walk, a HR, or a K - but every other outcome is necessarily impacted by the defense behind him. Even with the "three true outcomes," you could argue that the catcher calling the game shares credit with the pitcher. Those "three true outcomes" for Verlander in 2011 accounted for only a third or so (331) of his total PA.
A hitter, in contrast, is on his own. You could argue that giving a hitter 100% credit for getting a hit ignores the effect of the quality of defense he faced (just as we're crediting the defense behind a pitcher for some of what happens to that pitcher), but I feel much more comfortable crediting the hitter completely for his side of the "offense vs. pitching/defense" match-up than I do about giving a pitcher 100% of the credit for everything that happens (both negative and positive) while on the mound....
For this reason, ultimately the PA comparison between pitchers and hitters/position players doesn't work very well or very favorably for pitchers, in my opinion.
quote:"And as a previous poster mentioned, he took a lot of pressure off the bullpen.
I don't doubt that this is true, but I think it was a bit overstated (I don't have time to go back and figure out how often before and after Verlander's 34 starts this effect actually was seen or not, but I'm sure it wasn't 100% of the time) and regardless, at best this is a very indirect effect that cannot and should not be equated with the impact of those players who actually played in the 79% of Detroit's games that Justin Verlander did not.
I've conceded that Verlander had a great, even historic season, but I don't think it was enough to overcome an equally great season by Ellsbury. I'm not opposed to a pitcher getting the MVP, but it has to come in a year when position players haven't really done much, and the pitcher just knocks the socks off the field. It's going to be a rare occasion, and I think it should be, as I regard the Cy Young as Prime9 does - essentially the MVP for pitchers. I'd only award the MVP to a pitcher when no position player has a credible argument for having been as valuable or more valuable in his realm as that pitcher has been.
So let me make my case for Jacoby Ellsbury.
Ellsbury's value came not so much in sheer dominance of any ONE category, but excellence over an incredibly wide range of offensive statistics. With the exception of OBP (in which he finished 11th in the AL), Ellsbury was in the Top Five in virtually every other major offensive category - and of course, 1st in the stat that tries to bring it all together, WAR.
PA - 729, ranked 2nd in AL
AVG - .321, ranked 5th in AL
OBP - .376, ranked 11th in AL
SLG - .552, ranked 5th in AL
OPS - .928, ranked 5th in AL
Adjusted OPS+ - 146, ranked 5th in AL
Hits - 212, ranked 3rd in AL
Doubles - 46, ranked 3rd in AL
Home Runs - 32, ranked 5th in AL
Extra base hits - 83, ranked 1st in AL
Times on Base - 273, ranked 5th in AL
Runs Scored - 119, ranked 3rd in AL
RBI - 105 (despite batting leadoff), ranked 5th in AL
Stolen Bases - 39, ranked 4th in AL
Runs Created - 139, ranked 3rd in AL
WAR (Fangraphs) - 9.4, ranked 1st in AL (and MLB)
wOBA - .402, ranked 5th in AL
wRC - 150, ranked 5th in AL
Basically, Ellsbury hit for power numbers like an All Star corner outfielder, put up on base and speed numbers with the best lead-off & run hitters, and did it all while playing Gold Glove winning defense in centerfield, one of the most challenging defensive positions on the diamond. He did that while making ZERO errors, and in fact by advanced defensive metrics was the second-best-rated defensive OF in all of MLB. That is a picture of well-rounded "value" that is incredibly difficult to match, not only this year, but historically.
Since 1900, only eight players have had seasons in which they posted a season with an OPS+ of at least 145, at least 80 XBH, at least 270 times on base, and at least 30 stolen bases - and only five players have done that in the integration era: Ellsbury in 2011, Larry Walker in 1997, Jeff Bagwell in 1997, Ellis Burks in 1996, and Willie Mays in 1957. The only ones who won Gold Gloves in the year of these historic all-around offensive performances were Jacoby Ellsbury, Larry Walker, and Willie Mays, and only Ellsbury and Mays accomplished this while playing the premier defensive position that is centerfield, and Ellsbury is the only AL player to have accomplished it.
[The guys who finished 1-2 in the NL MVP voting today, Ryan Braun and Matt Kemp, just missed being included in this group for their 2011 seasons, as they finished 5 and 4 XBH short, respectively; Vladimir Guererro's 2002 season and David Wright's 2007 season also fell just short for lack of a few XBH. The pre-integration era players who accomplished this were Kiki Cuyler in 1925, Ken Williams in 1922, and George Sisler in 1920.]
I could understand voting Verlander the MVP in the absence of anybody having a season like this (or something reasonably close in value), but not when a position player shows this much value, both offensively and defensively.