An interesting "Verlander for MVP" arguement

A friend of mine mentioned this, and I want to get some opinions.

The big arguement against a pitcher winning an MVP is that he only appears in roughly 35 games, while someone like Granderson appears in roughly 155+ or whatever. This issue here is that batters appear to "work" more than pitchers. Of course, the definition of work is roughly moving something over a certain distance over a certain time.

But here's the thing: a pitcher throws about 100 pitches a game (or a stud like Verlander, who probably edges closer to 115), and we could say that the average PA lasts 6 pitches (maybe less? probably not more), so that's about 19-20 PA's that the pitcher is involved in per game (this number is closely related to the average IP per game, 7 or so in Verlander's case).

So if a hitter's prowess and value are related to the number of chances he has to excel in a PA, it stands to reason that a pitcher is doing just as much work as a batter, if not more. A pitcher is just doing it all in one game.

Now, obviously, you get to factor in base-running with a hitter, so the "work" goes up; but the differences aren't so great that you should be dismissing pitchers out-of-hand for the MVP just because they pitch.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are this, a pitcher has there own award. But I think in rare examples a case could be made for a pitch to gain MVP status too. I'm not sure one can even define the criteria needed for such, but I do think verlander is potentially going to have the type of year a case could be made.

I'll never understand the argument that a pitcher should not be considered for MVP simply b/c he cannot do something that is physically impossible. It is not logical, period.

Pitchers can have just as much of an impact for their team as a player, if not more. And this is the case with Verlander. And it was the case with Pedro in 99 and with Maddux in 95.

When a pitcher is as dominant as the seasons these three had/having, they should be considered for MVP. Maddux and Pedro deserved the MVP in their years. Verlander should be the frontrunner right now. If Verlander has 3 more starts like has been routinely doing all year, he should win it. Unless Granderson somehow gets his average up to .290 or Bautista hits 10 more home runs, then I could see them winning it.

hive17 said:

...But here's the thing: a pitcher throws about 100 pitches a game (or a stud like Verlander, who probably edges closer to 115), and we could say that the average PA lasts 6 pitches (maybe less? probably not more), so that's about 19-20 PA's that the pitcher is involved in per game (this number is closely related to the average IP per game, 7 or so in Verlander's case).

So if a hitter's prowess and value are related to the number of chances he has to excel in a PA, it stands to reason that a pitcher is doing just as much work as a batter, if not more. A pitcher is just doing it all in one game.

Now, obviously, you get to factor in base-running with a hitter, so the "work" goes up; but the differences aren't so great that you should be dismissing pitchers out-of-hand for the MVP just because they pitch.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I've said the same thing several times here. Nobody works as much as a pitcher, nobody influences the game more.

matfanofold said:

My thoughts are this, a pitcher has there own award. But I think in rare examples a case could be made for a pitch to gain MVP status too. I'm not sure one can even define the criteria needed for such, but I do think verlander is potentially going to have the type of year a case could be made.

Click to expand...

I agree with this completely.

The thing about Verlander this year is that if you want to talk about value to a team, I don't care what numbers anyone else has put up...the Tigers are .500 in games started by anyone besides Verlander. The Tigers are currently 16 games over .500. The Tigers would not be in 1st place without Verlander.

I will always argue for hitters over pitchers if it's close, but man, it's hard to imagine any of those offensive guys being more important to their team than Verlander has been to the Tigers this year.

markakis8 said:

I'll never understand the argument that a pitcher should not be considered for MVP simply b/c he cannot do something that is physically impossible. It is not logical, period.

Pitchers can have just as much of an impact for their team as a player, if not more. And this is the case with Verlander. And it was the case with Pedro in 99 and with Maddux in 95.

When a pitcher is as dominant as the seasons these three had/having, they should be considered for MVP. Maddux and Pedro deserved the MVP in their years. Verlander should be the frontrunner right now. If Verlander has 3 more starts like has been routinely doing all year, he should win it. Unless Granderson somehow gets his average up to .290 or Bautista hits 10 more home runs, then I could see them winning it.

Click to expand...

This is another thing that I see giving Verlander such a realistic chance this year. There are four very good offensive seasons in the AL right now, but no one of them is so much better than the others that I really think a lot of them will cancel each other out. Granderson has to be having the best offensive season overall, but with such a low average I just can't see him winning it.

Also notable: Verlander is leading the Majors in Wins, ERA, Ks, WHIP. Not just the AL, the entire Major Leagues.

ALL_THE_HYPE said:

markakis8 said:

I'll never understand the argument that a pitcher should not be considered for MVP simply b/c he cannot do something that is physically impossible. It is not logical, period.

Pitchers can have just as much of an impact for their team as a player, if not more. And this is the case with Verlander. And it was the case with Pedro in 99 and with Maddux in 95.

When a pitcher is as dominant as the seasons these three had/having, they should be considered for MVP. Maddux and Pedro deserved the MVP in their years. Verlander should be the frontrunner right now. If Verlander has 3 more starts like has been routinely doing all year, he should win it. Unless Granderson somehow gets his average up to .290 or Bautista hits 10 more home runs, then I could see them winning it.

Click to expand...

This is another thing that I see giving Verlander such a realistic chance this year. There are four very good offensive seasons in the AL right now, but no one of them is so much better than the others that I really think a lot of them will cancel each other out. Granderson has to be having the best offensive season overall, but with such a low average I just can't see him winning it.

Also notable: Verlander is leading the Majors in Wins, ERA, Ks, WHIP. Not just the AL, the entire Major Leagues.

Click to expand...

I've been on the "Verlander for MVP" campaign since he had about 15 wins. At that time, I was a laughing stock. It's intriguing to see how much press he's getting for the award now.

IPK for NL MBP

Without Kennedy the Diamondbacks wouldn't have a playoff spot. He is the clear MVP.

markakis8 said:

I'll never understand the argument that a pitcher should not be considered for MVP simply b/c he cannot do something that is physically impossible. It is not logical, period.

Pitchers can have just as much of an impact for their team as a player, if not more. And this is the case with Verlander. And it was the case with Pedro in 99 and with Maddux in 95.

When a pitcher is as dominant as the seasons these three had/having, they should be considered for MVP. Maddux and Pedro deserved the MVP in their years. Verlander should be the frontrunner right now. If Verlander has 3 more starts like has been routinely doing all year, he should win it. Unless Granderson somehow gets his average up to .290 or Bautista hits 10 more home runs, then I could see them winning it.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%

Most Valuable Player. It's just that. Take a player off a team ,and where would that team end up. Would the Tigers be in 1st without Verlander? NO! Would the Yankees or Red Sox have the record they have without Granderson or Gonzalez? More than likely, yes. Verlander should get the AL MVP, unless he has a meltdown in his next starts.

nosterbor said:

Most Valuable Player. It's just that. Take a player off a team ,and where would that team end up. Would the Tigers be in 1st without Verlander? NO! Would the Yankees or Red Sox have the record they have without Granderson or Gonzalez? More than likely, yes. Verlander should get the AL MVP, unless he has a meltdown in his next starts.

Click to expand...

Ian Kennedy should get the NL MVP.

nosterbor said:

Most Valuable Player. It's just that. Take a player off a team ,and where would that team end up. Would the Tigers be in 1st without Verlander? NO! Would the Yankees or Red Sox have the record they have without Granderson or Gonzalez? More than likely, yes. Verlander should get the AL MVP, unless he has a meltdown in his next starts.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Red Sox would have the exact same record if Gonzalez was not on the team.






::facepalm::

I'm in the "player with the best stats" boat. Give it to Bautista. Verlander is in a weak division. It is impossible to say that one player carries a team. Besides, Verlander is not the MVP of that team--Cabrera is.

I mentioned this in the other Verlander thread, whichever one that was.

Verlander has faced more batters than any hitter has had plate appearances, if I'm not mistaken. Again, Verlander leads all of baseball in innings, wins, strikeouts, and WHIP-not the American League, all of baseball.

I go back to this-a batter plays in, say, 160ish games a year. So what happens in those 40 or 50 games that the player goes 0-for and doesn't do anything in the field? At the end of the day, Verlander will have around 34 starts, and he will have been the biggest influence in about 30+ of those games. Is a batter the biggest influence in 30+ games? I would say no.

Now, I will admit that is a way to "cater" the argument towards a pitcher being chosen MVP-but this argument that pitchers shouldn't be considered is very, very short minded.

MOFNY said:

I'm in the "player with the best stats" boat. Give it to Bautista.

Click to expand...

And Verlanders stats are just as good as Bautista. So sure, I'm for that logic. Both are having crazy good years, so I'm sure it'd go to the player on the playoff team.

The MVP is traditionally a hitter's award. Bautista is putting up MVP-type numbers. If Martinez didn't win the award in 1999 and 2000 then Verlander shouldn't. Verlander is not having as good a season as Martinez in those years. Do you honestly think Dustin Pedroia had a better season than Cliff Lee in 2008? Lee finished 12th in MVP voting that year. I think if there is a year where there isn't a standout offensive MVP then pitchers should be considered; however, there is one this year (Bautista).

MOFNY said:

The MVP is traditionally a hitter's award. Bautista is putting up MVP-type numbers. If Martinez didn't win the award in 1999 and 2000 then Verlander shouldn't. Verlander is not having as good a season as Martinez in those years. Do you honestly think Dustin Pedroia had a better season than Cliff Lee in 2008? Lee finished 12th in MVP voting that year. I think if there is a year where there isn't a standout offensive MVP then pitchers should be considered; however, there is one this year (Bautista).

Click to expand...

Judas Priest, can we all stop saying this? This makes no sense. You don't punish someone in the present for something that happened against someone else in the past.

~Well Babe Ruth didn't get 100% of the vote for the HOF, so I'm going to leave Roberto Alomar off the ballot his 1st ballot to guarantee he won't get 100%.~

~Well African Americans weren't allowed to drink from the same water fountain as the whites in the past, so they present ones shouldn't be able to now.~

Ok that last one was a bit extreme, but you see my point.

ALL_THE_HYPE said:

matfanofold said:

My thoughts are this, a pitcher has there own award. But I think in rare examples a case could be made for a pitch to gain MVP status too. I'm not sure one can even define the criteria needed for such, but I do think verlander is potentially going to have the type of year a case could be made.

Click to expand...

I agree with this completely.

The thing about Verlander this year is that if you want to talk about value to a team, I don't care what numbers anyone else has put up...the Tigers are .500 in games started by anyone besides Verlander. The Tigers are currently 16 games over .500. The Tigers would not be in 1st place without Verlander.

I will always argue for hitters over pitchers if it's close, but man, it's hard to imagine any of those offensive guys being more important to their team than Verlander has been to the Tigers this year.

Click to expand...

This is clear for a pitcher.....and before I go, I want to say I have no problem with Verlander being considered for MVP at this point......but the problem is you can't know this with the positional players, unless they are on the DL and the team is forced to play without out them, and if that's the case it's doubtful they'd be a candidate since they are missing time.
To say something like - The Red Sox would be in the playoffs without Adrian Gonzalez is just speculation, and imo erroneous.

I mean Ellsbury missed a few games recently and the offense and the team couldn't score runs. He comes back and in the next game he gets on base to lead off and scores a run that gives them an early lead - they go on to score 11 in the game.
Point is - We have no idea where Boston would be without Ellsbury's production at the top of the lineup.....from the small sample size that recently occurred....you can't assume they'd be the same team. So that's my only problem with that argument.

rymflaherty said:

ALL_THE_HYPE said:

matfanofold said:

My thoughts are this, a pitcher has there own award. But I think in rare examples a case could be made for a pitch to gain MVP status too. I'm not sure one can even define the criteria needed for such, but I do think verlander is potentially going to have the type of year a case could be made.

Click to expand...

I agree with this completely.

The thing about Verlander this year is that if you want to talk about value to a team, I don't care what numbers anyone else has put up...the Tigers are .500 in games started by anyone besides Verlander. The Tigers are currently 16 games over .500. The Tigers would not be in 1st place without Verlander.

I will always argue for hitters over pitchers if it's close, but man, it's hard to imagine any of those offensive guys being more important to their team than Verlander has been to the Tigers this year.

Click to expand...

This is clear for a pitcher.....and before I go, I want to say I have no problem with Verlander being considered for MVP at this point......but the problem is you can't know this with the positional players, unless they are on the DL and the team is forced to play without out them, and if that's the case it's doubtful they'd be a candidate since they are missing time.
To say something like - The Red Sox would be in the playoffs without Adrian Gonzalez is just speculation, and imo erroneous.

I mean Ellsbury missed a few games recently and the offense and the team couldn't score runs. He comes back and in the next game he gets on base to lead off and scores a run that gives them an early lead - they go on to score 11 in the game.
Point is - We have no idea where Boston would be without Ellsbury's production at the top of the lineup.....from the small sample size that recently occurred....you can't assume they'd be the same team. So that's my only problem with that argument.

Click to expand...

I agree, but since it's obvious for a pitcher, I just think it's an argument FOR Verlander rather than one to be used against the other candidates. I have a hard time believing the Yanks and BoSox would miss the playoffs without Granderson/Gonzalez/Ellsbury because their supporting casts are too great IMO, but as you mention there's no way to be sure of it so it's really not an argument that can be used for or against position players.

^
Fair point then. I do agree it is a compelling case for Verlander.

I've been thinking about this some more - While I do agree with the premise.....I think it still remains difficult to compare the workload since a pitcher may have 100 + pitches in one game - which directly correlates to the result of that one game, while 100+ pitches seen by a batter could potentially affect the result of multiple results.
To determine which of those is more "valuable" potentially just leaves you running around in circles.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I certainly think Verlander should receive serious consideration and not be dismissed because he is a pitcher.....though as a Sox fan I do have to admit I am a bit bitter, and can't help but think if Pedro didn't win MVP and those two ass-hats left him off the ballot, then it's only fair to do the same here. :lol: