Originally Posted by LawrenceMD
thats actually a solid argument. but lets say verlander rips through the post season and posts the stats that put his team in perfect place to win... then add that to the regular season then you have to admit that verlander derserves consideration. I can easily see the tigers 1-2 ripping through the post season and winning the WS.
think about it... they often award post season MVPs to pitchers in baseball because well, the pitcher was actually the most valuable player during the series - even if he only pitches every 4th or 3rd start. it seems disingenuous to skew the voting parameters in the regular season compared to the post season.
It is not a valid argument. Why not?
Well, the argument for why pitchers should not win is that "a pitcher only pitches once a week and so he can't really affect his team's success as much as an everyday player". This may or may not be true.
Luckily, we have the WAR (Wins Above Replacement player) statistic. It captures the fact that pitcher's only pitch every fifth day. It normalizes for this. So really, saying that pitchers should not win the MVP because they don't play as much ignores the fact that they may very well be adding more wins to the team throughout a 162-game season than the best everyday batter.
Whether or not one thinks that the MVP should traditionally be awarded to a non-pitcher regardless, since pitchers already have the Cy Young is another question altogether and is really a matter of opinion since the rules do not prohibit a pitcher from winning the MVP and there is precedent for them doing so. But the argument that pitchers are "not as valuable" because they do not play every day can easily be disproved (or proved) using statistics that normalize for it, such as WAR.
PS I actually like both you and Slopho as posters, so I'm not trying to start a fight. Just pointing out what I believe is irrefutable logic.