Verlander = MVP and Cy Young

[TheChicagoFan]

Okay, you have conflicting opinions here (atleast it seems to me). You see where he is coming from, but don't agree, but then support his argument?

Please explain (and I mean that in a nice way.. not sure what you mean)

And btw, for anyone that thinks pitchers shouldn't be included, when they play their 20% of the games, they pitch to every single batter, they are the single most important person for every out of the game. In baseball, pitchers are king because it's a 1 on 1 sport. Pitchers are far more important then QBs in football or goalies in hockey.

Pitchers for MVP = A-Ok.

I guess I am a little conflicting.

I understand his reasoning and understand why he feels how he does, but I don't agree.

I think Verlander deserved it.

His point makes sense because he believes that an MVP has to play more than a pitcher does. I disagree for the reason you just said.

 

[Gunzaan]

I guess I am a little conflicting.

I understand his reasoning and understand why he feels how he does, but I don't agree.

I think Verlander deserved it.

His point makes sense because he believes that an MVP has to play more than a pitcher does. I disagree for the reason you just said.

That's cool, we all have our opinions.

I just don't buy the pitchers only play every 5 day argument. They are just as, if more, important then everyday players, IMO. Pitching wins championships, so not sure how they don't deserve a chance at MVPs.

 

[brett05]

Simple solution considering how the game has changed: Cy Young for pitchers; MVPs for non-pitchers.

It is ok to have an award for batters but MVP is for everyone as this season clearly proved Most Valuable

 

[brett05]

CC earned more votes AND points than Felix (granted, his 1 vote was of higher value) in 2010 for MVP when Felix earned the Cy Young. :smh:

Bad.

Best pitcher and most valuable are often very different

 

[Jntg4]

Pitschers are players, the award is Most Valuable Player, not Most Valuable Non-Pitcher

 

[Rice Cube]

There are Silver Slugger awards for offense and Gold Gloves for defense and Cy Young for pitchers, as well as those delivery man awards for relievers. MVP seems to cover all of it. If a position player's offense and defense are good enough he'll usually be the MVP. If no position player outshines the rest but there's a pitcher that's just lights out, the pitcher can sneak away with the MVP and it wouldn't be undeserving.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

Ahhh, yes...wins.

By default, which type of players have a higher direct correlation to quantity of wins based on the number of opportunities to win games?

"Everyday" players.

rice had a good response...and i will reiterate what i said earlier..in that players may have a higher direct correlation to wins because they play everyday...but pitchers arguably are much more responsible for the wins they are involved with

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

The difference is in their aggregate value. I know a lot of you guys don't believe in WAR but flawed as it is, it allows you to make a comparison between players, and importantly because it measures the players value in terms of runs created or runs prevented, it allows you to directly compare pitchers to position players. In 2010, Felix Hernandez was not clearly better than Josh Hamilton. In 2011, Verlander was on a level with Jose Bautista and Jacoby Ellsbury. Therefore a vote for Verlander for MVP was more defensible this year than a vote for Hernandez last year.

There's also the whole "he was on a winning team" thing, which probably helped Verlander quite a bit and penalized Bautista and Ellsbury, and by extension, also penalized Hernandez last year. The shiny 20+ win record looks nice too.

Never said the system was foolproof.

i agree with alot of this post...

WAR is certainly not a bad reference when it comes to comparisons...but obviously since it is made up of flawed stats..its going to be flawed itself..not to mention there are different versions of WAR where there are distinct fluctuations of value

 

[TheChicagoFan]

That's cool, we all have our opinions.

I just don't buy the pitchers only play every 5 day argument. They are just as, if more, important then everyday players, IMO. Pitching wins championships, so not sure how they don't deserve a chance at MVPs.

Yeah. Pitcher is probably the most important position in baseball. He needs offensive backup and defensive backup, but without good pitchers, your team isn't going anywhere. That's why the Phillies had such a good chance to win. Too bad they had to face the champs in the first round.

 

[Capt. Serious]

That's cool, we all have our opinions.

I just don't buy the pitchers only play every 5 day argument. They are just as, if more, important then everyday players, IMO. Pitching wins championships, so not sure how they don't deserve a chance at MVPs.

Um these are season awards brah.

Verlander won the Cy Young..more than enough.

Give the MVP to a guy who busts his ass every day like Miggy or Ellsbury.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

Um these are season awards brah.

i think gunzaan understands that...he referenced championships as an example of how pitching is important...

its pretty obvious these are regular season awards..its not like he doesnt know that

Verlander won the Cy Young..more than enough.

in many cases it is...but verlander had an unbelievable year and there certainly is a good argument for him deserving the MVP

Give the MVP to a guy who busts his ass every day like Miggy or Ellsbury.

if you are referencing to the whole, position players are more important because they play everyday thing, this whole argument has already been refuted

a starting pitcher doesnt take days off between starts because he isnt "busting his ass"..its because unlike a position player, he is on the mound pitching for straight innings...which causes greats amount of arm stress due to use and torque...its not a choice...a pitcher needs to take days off otherwise his arm gets completely fucked

again verlander is an exception, usually pitchers should not get MVPs....but its hard to say that verlander's production is not incredible and that he wasnt incredibly important to the tigers...

i think rice made another good argument about precedence..in that pitcher with less productive seasons have become MVP

 

[Rice Cube]

Just for kicks, check out this guy:

Randy Johnson Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

For a stretch he was the best pitcher in the National League and might have been higher up on the MVP charts.

Except there was this guy named Barry Bonds.

 

[Captain Iago]

Absolutely un-justified. You can't compare the two sports. Football is a more complete team sport. Baseball is A LOT more 1 vs 1 and the pitcher is there for 27 outs. On a game-to-game-basis, a pitcher is a million times more important then a QB in football.

And you think as a position player, Ellisbury should have won MVP? Rofl. Fucking hilarious. Ellisbury is surrounded by 3-5 potential MVPs in that lineup and they completely choked this year, yet he would have won it if Verlander didn't. It would have been the biggest joke of an award EVER if Ellisbury won it this year.

I never said Ellsbury deserved it. Get your captains straight.

 

[Captain Iago]

i think gunzaan understands that...he referenced championships as an example of how pitching is important...

its pretty obvious these are regular season awards..its not like he doesnt know that



in many cases it is...but verlander had an unbelievable year and there certainly is a good argument for him deserving the MVP





if you are referencing to the whole, position players are more important because they play everyday thing, this whole argument has already been refuted

a starting pitcher doesnt take days off between starts because he isnt "busting his ass"..its because unlike a position player, he is on the mound pitching for straight innings...which causes greats amount of arm stress due to use and torque...its not a choice...a pitcher needs to take days off otherwise his arm gets completely fucked

again verlander is an exception, usually pitchers should not get MVPs....but its hard to say that verlander's production is not incredible and that he wasnt incredibly important to the tigers...

i think rice made another good argument about precedence..in that pitcher with less productive seasons have become MVP

I'm not convinced. I agreed that a pitcher has the game in his hands more than any other player, but that only comes when said pitcher is on the mound...aka 1 in 5. Not enough to be considered a MVP of a league.

 

[brett05]

A batters chance to control a game is less than a pitchers even though ge plays five times as much. You could make an argument that the MVP is almost always a pitcher

 

[Gunzaan]

A batters chance to control a game is less than a pitchers even though ge plays five times as much. You could make an argument that the MVP is almost always a pitcher

So true.