Your thoughts on a pitcher winning the MVP award

[JoshHamilton]

MVP stands for "Most Valuable Player," not "Most Valuable Player On A Playoff Contender"

 

[djmilhaus]

I don't see a pitcher winning MVP as a problem, but they really need to distinguish themselves from a hitter in my opinion. Kershaw being considered this year is appropriate, barring any major meltdown.

 

[selah150pslm]

MVP stands for "Most Valuable Player," not "Most Valuable Player On A Playoff Contender"

My biggest complaint about the MVP. I'd lean more towards a hitter than a pitcher, but the 'has to be a playoff team to win the award' is dumb in my opinion.

 

[onionring9]

I don't see a pitcher winning MVP as a problem, but they really need to distinguish themselves from a hitter in my opinion. Kershaw being considered this year is appropriate, barring any major meltdown.

I tried to rack my brain for any situation where I felt a pitcher could be warranted as an MVP and the lowest scenario I could come up with was a pitcher having a Kershaw season, in the AL, batting DH with anywhere from above average to triple crown contributions when he wasn't pitching

 

[Austin]

I'd lean more towards a hitter than a pitcher, but the 'has to be a playoff team to win the award' is dumb in my opinion.

Voters don't always choose players who are on playoff teams.
Bonds, Arod, Pujols, Dawson, Banks, and lots of players have won MVP awards on non-playoff and even last place teams.
But being the leader of a great team certainly helps, and it should, because it's called Most Valuable Player, not Best Player.

As for those of you saying the MVP's intent is not for pitchers, the first NL MVP Award in 1931 was given to a pitcher, Lefty Grove.
And when the first Cy Young Awards came out in 1956, the first NL winner was Don Newcombe, who also won the MVP Award.
The guidelines for MVP voting say it's open to all players and positions. It's not a hitter's award.

 

[onionring9]

Voters don't always choose players who are on playoff teams.
Bonds, Arod, Pujols, Dawson, Banks, and lots of players have won MVP awards on non-playoff and even last place teams.
But being the leader of a great team certainly helps, and it should, because it's called Most Valuable Player, not Best Player.

As for those of you saying the MVP's intent is not for pitchers, the first NL MVP Award in 1931 was given to a pitcher, Lefty Grove.
And when the first Cy Young Awards came out in 1956, the first NL winner was Don Newcombe, who also won the MVP Award.
The guidelines for MVP voting say it's open to all players and positions. It's not a hitter's award.

Huh? This isn't a question about the definition of what the MLB defines as who can earn the award of MVP. That isn't a debate, you are right the guidelines are defined. Nobody here is disputing the eligibility of a pitcher as an MVP.

The dispute is whether or not we feel a pitcher really is more valuable than an every day player. This isn't an argument to ban pitchers from being thrown in the hat. Those of us that don't feel a pitcher can hit #1 in MVP rankings in modern ball (back in the day when they pitched every other day of course they could) just feel a pitcher that doesn't DH or contribute outside of his every 5th/6th day starts would be very high on the MVP final rankings...

 

[Austin]

Huh? This isn't a question about the definition of what the MLB defines as who can earn the award of MVP. That isn't a debate, you are right the guidelines are defined. Nobody here is disputing the eligibility of a pitcher as an MVP.

The dispute is whether or not we feel a pitcher really is more valuable than an every day player. This isn't an argument to ban pitchers from being thrown in the hat. Those of us that don't feel a pitcher can hit #1 in MVP rankings in modern ball (back in the day when they pitched every other day of course they could) just feel a pitcher that doesn't DH or contribute outside of his every 5th/6th day starts would be very high on the MVP final rankings...

I respect your opinion, but by declaring that no pitcher can be MVP because he plays every 5th day, is essentially making pitchers ineligible to that voter.
Yes, it is that voter's opinion, but it also invalidates the guidelines (for that voter and like-minded voters) by eliminating all pitchers from consideration.
That was my point.

 

[Super Mario]

I'm personally not a fan of it, but that's my opinion.


The pitchers have their own set of awards is how I look at it.

A player who only plays once every five days cannot be the most valuable player in the entire league, in my opinion.

 

[darocker80]

Most of my argument has already been posted. I tend to lean towards hitters in the MVP voting; however, a special season (like the one kershaw is having) is deserving to be a contender for the MVP. It is crazy that he is putting up these numbers and leads the NL in wins after missing a month of baseball to begin the season

What is everyone's top 5 NL MVP ballot look like?

1. Kershaw
2. Posey
2. McCutchen
4. Stanton
5. Lucroy
*Honorable mention who know one considers..PENCE .294 AVG 19 HR 70 RBI 173 Hits 102 Runs 13 Stolen Bases
*Honorable Mention #2 Freddie Freeman .292 18 HR 73 RBI 162 Hits 90 Runs .866 OPS

 

[u2me57]

I don't mind a pitcher getting it when they have a great year like Kershaw this year or Verlander a few years ago. Like someone else said, the Dodgers wouldn't be in 1st place without Kershaw. His dominance really helps out the bullpen on a daily basis, and helps the pen be more rested at the end of the year.

 

[Topnotchsy]

If you are going that route, you are making an even weaker argument because you do not include that non-pitchers also play defense 140ish pitches every game along with batting 4 times a game, as well as on the base paths for some of the other at-bats and has to do that day-in and day-out 6-7 times a week. A pitcher throws 100ish pitches once every 5 days so even in those games, he doesn't even play the whole game. You do not take into account half of the MVP argument.

The stats are extremely lopsided, hence the reason I do not feel you have a strong argument. I'm not saying you are wrong but I think the argument as a pitcher for MVP is very weak, especially since there is an award specifically for them, the Cy Young. I do feel though your argument is absolutely warranted because of the season Kershaw is having, however I do not agree with you at all.

In the end, you are entitled to your opinion

We can disagree happily. I'm good with that.

It is true that a pitcher often does not pitch the entire game, but pitchers almost always face more batters than batters have plate appearances. Kershaw has already faced 650 batters this season, and faced 900+ each of the previous 3 seasons.

As far as defense, it's an interesting argument because it is not unusual for MVP candidates to have be below average in their defensive metrics. McCutchen, Trout, Cabrera and others all rate as below average, meaning that their impact could be viewed as negative defensively.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the stats are lopsided" but I'm definitely open to hearing. I'm comfortable with my position but open to being convinced otherwise.

 

[seitas]

It's naive to think a starting pitcher only effects 1/5 of the games. I hate the dodgers but Kershaw is the MVP. You take Kershaw off of the dodgers and they're a .500 team. He goes deep into games and doesn't tax an already weak bullpen. Him going deep into games allows that turd of a bullpen to remain fresh turds. As 200lb hockey said it takes a special season for a starting pitcher to deserve this award and we're watching Kershaw have a special season. Give him the MVP but give the giants the west crown.