Should a Pitcher be able to win MVP?

[RL24]

Are pitchers eligible to win the MVP under baseball's rules?

Oh, they are you say?

There's your answer

You're answering the wrong question. The question was not CAN a pitcher win, but SHOULD a pitcher win. But to answer your question...

“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;

No, pitchers are not really eligible to win under the rules. You have to completely disregard their strength of offense, and according to the rules you should not. You have to play in a significant amount of your teams' games. Starting pitchers do not.

The forefathers of baseball wrote the rules for MVP voting so that a pitcher really should not be able to win the award.

My beef is how people associate the MVP award with being the best player in the league.

It's really not.

It's the Most Valuable Player to his repsective team.

In my eyes, that person is easily Justin Verlander.

Without him, Detroit would be nowhere close to where they currently sit

So you think if you took Verlander out and stuck a replacement in, that person would be 0-25 instead of 20-5? I'm guessing more like 15-10, or maybe 12-13. If the replacement in question was 15-10, the Tigers would still be on top of the weakest division in baseball. Worst case scenario, they are a couple games back.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

“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;

No, pitchers are not really eligible to win under the rules. You have to completely disregard their strength of offense, and according to the rules you should not. You have to play in a significant amount of your teams' games. Starting pitchers do not.

The forefathers of baseball wrote the rules for MVP voting so that a pitcher really should not be able to win the award.

Where can one find this 'rule', and how much of a rule can it be/how much does offense matter if multiple AL pitchers have already won?

 

[19braves77]

I think if you allow pitchers to win the MVP then managers should be able to win the award also. The Manager touches the field more then a starter does over a season and has the say so of how long the pitcher touches the mound also. Thats how absurd this is.....

 

[Crewfan82]

I voted no for the simple fact that a pitchers contribute in about 35 or so games per year while a position player is going to contribute in 150 or so.

 

[xcantgobackx]

Haven't read this thread and I don't have any strong opinion either way, but I thought it was notable that on the Yankee broadcast right now, Al Leiter (a pitcher) is saying that pitchers shouldn't win the MVP. Hmm... very interesting.

 

[aminors]

My beef is how people associate the MVP award with being the best player in the league.

It's really not.

It's the Most Valuable Player to his repsective team.

In my eyes, that person is easily Justin Verlander.

Without him, Detroit would be nowhere close to where they currently sit

Thank you. Somebody can read around here.

The most VALUABLE player. Not the BEST player.

So you think if you took Verlander out and stuck a replacement in, that person would be 0-25 instead of 20-5? I'm guessing more like 15-10, or maybe 12-13. If the replacement in question was 15-10, the Tigers would still be on top of the weakest division in baseball. Worst case scenario, they are a couple games back.

lol, I don't know what you're basing that guess on, but there only seven, I repeat SEVEN players in major league baseball who have 15 or more wins thus far this season. To say that any old throw-in replacement would be 15-10 makes you look like a complete idiot.

 

[RL24]

So you think if you took Verlander out and stuck a replacement in, that person would be 0-25 instead of 20-5? I'm guessing more like 15-10, or maybe 12-13. If the replacement in question was 15-10, the Tigers would still be on top of the weakest division in baseball. Worst case scenario, they are a couple games back.

lol, I don't know what you're basing that guess on, but there only seven, I repeat SEVEN players in major league baseball who have 15 or more wins thus far this season. To say that any old throw-in replacement would be 15-10 makes you look like a complete idiot.

Well, my fellow idiot, when the guys at baseball reference and those sites determine a players value over a replacement player, as in ... WAR... they use the 2nd best player in the league at the players position to determine a players worth/value. So THOSE IDIOTS would assume a suitable replacement for Verlander would be 17-7. Which would stick the Tigers exactly where they are currently at.


Next argument?

 

[bowmanchromeandorr]

MVP should be a position player, CY young should be for starting pitcher, and relievers should be the reliever of the year award. Thats my opinion

exactly. plus, pitchers only play in about 35-40 games a year whichmeans they only matter in a about 1/4 of the games. hardly makes the case for an mvp. pitchers have their mvp award, its called the CY YOUNG award.

 

[George_Calfas]

Yes

If Verlander wins 25 games he "should" be the MVP. Consider the tigers w/o him and replaced with an average SP winning 12-15 games......the Tiger would be out of the playoffs.

Also consider a "quality" SP like Verlander, he will nearly face as many batters as a position player get ABs.

Several other players are in strong consideration for the MVP, however none is really that more dominate than another........Verlander has been a stud.

Also, Detroit and Boston missed the 2010 playoffs, Boston added two big pieces and what did Detroit add?

 

[sportscardtheory]

What I don't understand is where all these "Verlander should be MVP" people were the last 5+ seasons. Every season there is one or two pitchers who have utterly dominant seasons helping their team to the playoffs, yet I don't recall seeing such an uproar for them to be the MVP. Why Verlander and why now?

 

[George_Calfas]

What I don't understand is where all these "Verlander should be MVP" people were the last 5+ seasons. Every season there is one or two pitchers who have utterly dominant seasons helping their team to the playoffs, yet I don't recall seeing such an uproar for them to be the MVP. Why Verlander and why now?

Those years had dominate position players, that is not the case this year.

 

[nborton]

What I don't understand is where all these "Verlander should be MVP" people were the last 5+ seasons. Every season there is one or two pitchers who have utterly dominant seasons helping their team to the playoffs, yet I don't recall seeing such an uproar for them to be the MVP. Why Verlander and why now?

Those years had dominate position players, that is not the case this year.

This is what the whole discussion is about. If there were someone out there with a .330 45 HR 120+ RBI season no one would be talking about Verlander.

In the end I think Bautista being on a non-playoff team will hurt more than Verlander being a pitcher. For many voters that matters the most. They won't vote for anyone not on a playoff team. That's why Sosa finished low in his crazy HR seasons.

Just to stir the pot more, people tend to vote for position players for MVP, but only on winning teams. While the CY is seen as the pitching MVP award. However, the pitcher can be on a totally crappy team. It's a double standard.

 

[jgro85]

People do realize that wins are team stats, and shouldn't be used to evaluate a pitcher's talent right?

 

[markakis8]

What I don't understand is where all these "Verlander should be MVP" people were the last 5+ seasons. Every season there is one or two pitchers who have utterly dominant seasons helping their team to the playoffs, yet I don't recall seeing such an uproar for them to be the MVP. Why Verlander and why now?

The year Zack Greinke was dominant, the Royals didn't make the playoffs.
The year Cliff Lee was dominant, the Indians didn't make the playoffs.
The year Felix Hernandez was dominant, the Mariners didn't make the playoffs.
The years Tim Lincecum won, the Giants didn't make the playoffs.

You get my drift. And Verlander, arguably is having a better season than any of those four did in their Cy Young years. Oh, and as it's been said numerous times in this thread, the Tigers wouldn't be in first without Verlander.

Verlander for MVP.

 

[jgro85]

The Tigers also wouldn't be in first without Miggy or Alex Avila.

 

[markakis8]

The Tigers also wouldn't be in first without Miggy or Alex Avila.

Without Miggy or Avila and with Verlander, I wholeheartedly believe they would still be in first.

 

[MallCopKJ]

No Pedro=No Verlander.

 

[All The Hype]

No Pedro=No Verlander.

I have to disagree. Pedro's '99 was one of the most masterful pitching seasons of all time, but just because he got skunked of the award doesn't mean that NO pitcher should ever be allowed to win MVP.

 

[MallCopKJ]

No Pedro=No Verlander.

I have to disagree. Pedro's '99 was one of the most masterful pitching seasons of all time, but just because he got skunked of the award doesn't mean that NO pitcher should ever be allowed to win MVP.

I know but there are guys who vote that dont believe pitchers should win and wont even put them on their ballot.

 

[hail2thevictors]

No Pedro=No Verlander.

Were not talking about 1999 here man.

Voters aren't going to sit there like angry children and say "Pedro didn't win it in 1999 with better numbers, I'm not voting for Verlander!" Verlander is making a very compelling case, but the last month will decide the award. Long ways to go.