AL MVP award is a joke

[BudAshes]

I would have taken bautista. I know the jays weren't great but he carried that team all year to a decent record for their talent level.

 

[Baked]

Before you blindly think that just 'cause Verlander's not a position player, thus eliminating him from MVP consideration, read this article by Bill Simmons that explains and justifies why Verlander deserved the AL MVP award. He wrote this piece more than 2 months ago.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6921420/passing-buck

 

[NeoV]

I've read the articles and they still are crap - and thanks RC for being a prick in the discussion with "The argument that an everyday position player has more of an effect than a top-of-the-rotation starter is simply asinine. "

One of the articles on ESPN even talks about how Verlander threw more pitches than any other pitcher this year....which means what exactly?

Saving the bullpen? Please.

Miguel Cabrerra was the MVP of the Tigers, period.

 

[IAteYourMother]

I thought Ellsbury was the easy pick. Verlander should've been in the conversation, as I think it's silly just to argue that he doesn't get it because he's a pitcher. He has a huge influence on the few games he doesn pitch.

Still, Ellsbury as a whole player was incredible this season, more valuable than Verlander in my opinion. I mean come on, a center fielder that could hit for amazing average, power, and draw walks??? He stole 40 bases and played great defense to boot. All in 158 games played as well.

You can't just discount a pitcher from the MVP, but when you got a player like Jacoby who was transcendent, I don't see how you can give the award to a pitcher. 32 HRs!!! From a center fielder!!!

 

[paperfist]

"For all of the "he only played in 35 games" people....Verlander faced on average 35 batters a game. Therefore, in his 35 games, he affected 1,225 plays. A batter who plays ALL 162 games and averages 4 at bats and 4 plays in the field a game affects 1,296 plays..... I say that means they're on equal footing when doing comparisons. "

I'd like to see, but am too lazy to look up how many of those games he pitched in were close, blow outs and which ones had to be saved.

Average seems to be irrelevant other wise. How many times does the 1B save a pitcher's ass? He takes the throw over tosses, he fields how many countless plays, takes ABs which may or may not affect the out come of the game.

So while Verlander may have affected 1,225 plays he couldn't have done 50% of them without the guys in-front of and in-back of him. He is not a lone wolf.

While I don't disagree that other then the catcher, the pitcher has the 2nd most physically grueling job out there, he cannot be an MVP.

He won it because when the hell is the last time we saw a 24 game winner?

 

[midwestfisherman]

A starting pitcher should never, ever, win the MVP award.

The Tigers played 162 games - Verlander pitched in 34 of them.

The Cy Young award is for the best pitcher - which he clearly was in the AL this year.

 

[manly]

Miguel Cabrerra was the MVP of the Tigers, period.

Hate to be a spelling nit, but it helps a bit if you got his name right.

Simmons's column points out Lefty Grove won the first AL MVP over 1200 OPS Babe Ruth (not saying Grove should have). Another writer noted in 1959, three pitchers went 1-2-3 in balloting. Bias against pitchers is a modern phenomenon.

Looks like Red Sox Nation has a fair case for Ellsbury, but their implosion wrecked his chances.

 

[lyssword]

So? batters only appear 4 AB and catch maybe 1-2 balls for outfielders per game. That's so much more work than pitchers have to do /s

 

[rcpratt]

Miguel Cabrerra was the MVP of the Tigers, period.

At least try. Use numbers, or something. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[SP33Demon]

that math around Verlander is ridiculous too - does that mean catchers should be MVP's because they 'affect' more plays than the other fielders do too?

Are we going to ignore any defensive ability/plays too since we only want to count at-bats for position players now?

Pedro Martinez had arguably the best season a starting pitcher has EVER had in 1999 - if that wasn't MVP award worthy, this season from Verlander certainly wasn't.

Quite frankly, they need to change the awards - 1 for best pitcher, 1 for best non-pitcher.

I only agree with your point on Pedro, and on the surface it is a damning one with respect to dominance.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/earned_run_avg_plus_season.shtml

Verlander's 170 ERA+ (adjusted for ballpark/league for those who aren't into sabremetrics) for 2011 ranked 158th of all time, or tied with guys like Al Leiter (1998) and Gaylord Perry (1972). That isn't exactly a ringing endorsement, especially considering Pedro ranked 1st in the modern era in 2000 @291. Let's just put this into perspective for a moment: Pedro posted a 13.2K/9 and 1.6BB/9 to give him an untouchable 8.46 SO/BB ratio (and it was even higher in 2000 @8.88). Verlander? 9K/9 and 2BB/9, or a 4.43 SO/BB ratio. Verlander essentially had half the dominance of Pedro regarding K's and BB's.

However, Pedro only had 18 wins that season. Voters love wins just like RBI's; it's not logical and one of those things that is dependent on team play. There are still many traditional voters in the mix and this is simply how they've always voted. So that plays into it.

There is more to this story though: Durability. Verlander led the league in innings pitched which isn't factored into ERA+. He had 251 vs Pedro in 99/00 only 213 and 217. I consider this a huge factor because you can always depend on your #1 if they are a workhorse. JV filled this role much better than even the legendary Pedro when he finished 2nd in the MVP voting. In my mind, durability cancels out the Pedro dominance argument. Think of it like this, who would you rather have, Sandy Koufax or Curt Schilling? Schilling averaged 217 IP over his prime (15 years), while Koufax only had 5 good years. There is no question as to who was more dominant (Koufax) vs the rest of the league, yet many would still take Schilling for his longevity. Also consider that both finished their careers with virtually identical ERA+ career averages (131 vs 128). Yet I digress.

Next, as a sabermetric nerd I have to take into account the WAR stat. While not perfect, it's a good indicator of overall value. Baseball Ref shows JV at 8.6. Pedro posted only an 8.4 in 1999 due to his frailty. Here we see that JV has leveled the field with his durability since WAR is cumulative. In fact, JV has a higher WAR than Bautista on BRef (which is better than Fangraphs IMO), 8.6 to 8.5. Ellsbury, 7.2, not even in the discussion.

So now it comes down to JV vs Bautista. Bautista missed 13 games which really hurt him, especially WAR. Now you may say, well Josh Hamilton missed 20+ last year so what gives? Well, Hamilton won the batting title which was an amazing feat for someone with his power. Bautista batted .302 which is nothing compared to Hamilton's .359. Furthermore, even though Bautista had 43 HRs, voters only gave him enough votes to finish 4th last year when he hit 54 HRs. So he most likely would have had to hit 50 or more again to really send a message to voters that last year wasn't a fluke. It didn't happen though.

In the intangibles category, Bautista plays slightly above average defense (dWAR@0.4) but wasn't by any means the best at his position. He doesn't really have speed like Kemp to steal bases. His numbers significantly drop with Runners in Scoring Position in batting average (.245) and OPS (.956). Other guys of similar offensive firepower such as Matt Kemp and Lance Berkman got better (11 and 59 points) with runners on, so why couldn't Bautista? Looking at JV, once again he holds the advantage because of his durability. He throws almost 100mph into the 8th inning, and many say he gets stronger as the game progresses. What other pitcher in MLB can do that? You have to give the intangibles nod to JV over Bautista off of his bionic arm alone.

All in all, 2011 was the perfect storm for JV to win the MVP. In the post steroid era, voters and fans are skeptical of gaudy offensive numbers, call it a hangover effect. Voters have shown they are willing to atone for their past sins of voting erroneously for MVP (Pedro not winning it in 99/00, Fatolo Colon winning it in 05 instead of Santana for example). They are looking at sabermetrics more as evidenced by the low win totals of past Cy Young winners like King Felix and Tim Lincecum who didn't have the wins. Sabermetrically, JV was tops in his league in just about everything: wins, WHIP, K/9 (no Morrow/Pineda don't count @ <200 IP), ERA, ERA+, WAR, Total Innings Pitched, Total K's, and SIERA. His only flaws were not finishing in the top 3 in BB rate (#5) and groundball&#37; rate (middle of the pack). Which isn't that big of a deal when you lead in the aforementioned categories.

In a nutshell, JV was deserving of the AL MVP Award over all other candidates statistically as well as off of the stat sheet due to his tireless bionic arm (intangibles) which was a testament to his superior durability. No other candidate dominated their peers in such a manner and as a result, provided more value to his team than JV.

 

[NeoV]

Speed - no one argued that Verlander didn't have a good season - that's why he won the Cy Young award. However, - you and I have talked about this before - comparing WAR for pitchers and position players is apples to oranges, and WAR itself has flaws - it's only comparing players to other players. My main point is that a starting pitcher only impacts the games he pitches in, and in Verlander's case that was 34 games. Yes, the bullpen typically was used less when he pitched, but the Tigers had a very deep bullpen this year, particularly once Al Albe (ok I'm not going to spell it right) established himself - so as long as Valverde wasn't pitching 3 days in a row, the value of that is over-stated.



Also - Speed - Pedro's 1999 - and not winning the MVP - the Red Sox were also very careful with him - he came out of a number of games after 6 innings or so - so his 217 - not sure that should really be held against him the way you implied it should have. Also - 'only' 18 wins - I think we both know how meaningless wins are in evaluating starting pitchers - yes, I agree it impacts voters, but that doesn't mean it should.

lyssword - so are catchers and first-basemen more valuable that other position players because the ball is in their hands more? If an outfielder has a cannon-arm, how many runs does he save by people not trying to take extra bases on him? If a catcher is great at throwing out runners, how many runs does he save because teams don't try to steal on him?

RC - I played Division 1 baseball - I'm going to go out on a limb and say that at least qualifies me to discuss baseball. Sorry I spelled the name of the Tiger's first baseman wrong.

 

[rcpratt]

I had no comment on any of your spelling. And frankly I don't think you playing baseball qualifies you for much, other than playing baseball.

I just don't understand why people struggle to grasp this concept. A starting pitcher impacts less games, but he has a massive impact on that game. A position player impacts nearly every game, but has a much, much, much smaller impact on each game.

 

[NeoV]

final stats from me on this issue

Verlander won 11 games against KC, Minn, and Chicago this year - hardly good teams.

Take away the 34 starts that Verlander had - and the Tigers only had to play 500 ball to still win their division.

 

[TheAdvocate]

I am a NL fan, and a fading baseball fan at that, and I am incredulous at this argument that Verlander didn't deserve the MVP.

There simply was no dominant fielding player, and Verlander turned in one of the most dominant pitching seasons in the past couple of decades. I believe I heard that of the 5 games he did lose, he only gave up more than 3 runs twice. That means that 27 of his starts should have been wins. Couple that with his absurdly low 2.4 ERA, 0.92 WHIP and 250 K's (in 251 IPs, a K per inning!), and it's a HOF type of year.

Position players in baseball average about 500 AB's per season and what, maybe 600 plate appearances? Miguel Cabrera, Verlander's teammate, and a pretty damn good player himself, had 572 ABs in 161 games, or 3.55 ABs/game. Add 108 walks to get 680 plate appearances (give or take) for the season, or 3.77 plate appearances per game. In 5 games (Verlander's start plus 4 starts before his next), Cabrera would average (5x3.77) 18.9 plate appearances, plus fielding appearances.

By comparison, Verlander faced 969 batters in 251 IP. He started 34 games, so that's roughly 7 1/2 innings per start, and 28.5 batters per start. How are 18.9 plate appearances per 5 games by a position player that much more significant than 28.5 batters faced per pitching start?

The answer - it isn't. Pitchers get a raw deal in that comparison. They are just as important from pure statistical analysis, and it cannot be quantified how much of a lift teams get from knowing they have an ace that is going to punch a W every 5th game and turnround losing streaks, etc. Ask any pro player, and they will tell you that factor is enormous and cannot be overstated.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Next, as a sabermetric nerd I have to take into account the WAR stat. While not perfect, it's a good indicator of overall value. Baseball Ref shows JV at 8.6. Pedro posted only an 8.4 in 1999 due to his frailty. Here we see that JV has leveled the field with his durability since WAR is cumulative. In fact, JV has a higher WAR than Bautista on BRef (which is better than Fangraphs IMO), 8.6 to 8.5. Ellsbury, 7.2, not even in the discussion.

I know you prefer BRef to Fangraphs, but it's worth noting that Ellsbury has a 9.4 WAR on fangraphs compared to Bautista's 8.3 and Verlander's 7.0. In other words, to take Ellsbury out of the discussion based on WAR numbers is ludicrous.

 

[manly]

final stats from me on this issue

Verlander won 11 games against KC, Minn, and Chicago this year - hardly good teams.

Take away the 34 starts that Verlander had - and the Tigers only had to play 500 ball to still win their division.

you have some points for a somewhat different argument.

Your original statement is much too extreme IMO. Hypothetically if a SP goes 30-2 over a season with a 1.50 ERA, that's arguably an MVP performance in many seasons. The aforementioned Pedro in 1999 during the 'roids era is certainly dominant enough, and many believe he was "robbed".

Now if your argument is that Verlander didn't do enough this season to merit the award, that speaks to a different voter bias. Just because the Blue Jays finished 4th in their division and the BoSox tanked shouldn't exclude Bautista and Ellsbury from winning the MVP if they're more deserving. Unfortunately that is probably the case here, leaving the voters to ignore a bias against SPs and pick Verlander. Bautista had two other red flags going, the suspicion factor and his 2nd half swoon relative to his pre All-Star Break dominance.

All else being equal, if the Blue Jays or Red Sox won the wild card, then Bautista or Ellsbury would've taken the MVP award.

 

[Squisher]

Didn't Verlander stop 16 losing streaks this year?

 

[manly]

Didn't Verlander stop 16 losing streaks this year?

IIRC he was 16-3 after a Tigers loss, don't know how many of those were a streak (2+).

Basically, the Tigers rotation was trash except for Verlander and a trade deadline acquisition. Even though they ultimately ran away with the division, who's to say what would've happened if he was merely good this season instead of utterly dominant.

 

[umbrella39]

A starting pitcher should never, ever, win the MVP award.

The Tigers played 162 games - Verlander pitched in 34 of them.

The Cy Young award is for the best pitcher - which he clearly was in the AL this year.

Then they need to tell the people voting to exclude pitchers from the vote, until then, you have no point...

 

[soulcougher73]

At least try. Use numbers, or something. You're embarrassing yourself.

Yeah i mean i had no idea who he was talking about.