Discussion in 'Entertainment, Culture, and Sports' started by edinatlanta, Feb 3, 2011.
FanGraphs baby. Or just use both. You kinda have to with the different WAR and shit.
No player and I mean no player who plays only a quarter of the season should even be mentioned in the discussion for MVP.
It's all about WAR. WAR normalizes for the fact that pitcher's play fewer games.
Thanks Billy Beane!! I'm still from the old school of statistics and terminology. I like to refer to "batters" as "batsmen".
I agree. MVP for the hitters, CY Young for the pitchers.
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.
But in fairness, there're no post season Cy Young awards.
The problem is that there is no clearly established formula for WAR, and (obviously) it's calculated differently for pitchers than position players.
That said, worth nothing that a pitcher, while he plays only once every fifth game, has a much greater influence on average on the games he does play than any individual position player.
I'm actually agreeing with you that pitchers should be considered in the MVP race, especially if they are the ones who put the team in best probable position to win - even if its only 30% of the time. It just has to be a blatantly obvious that its the pitcher alone that really deserves the lions share (thankfully advanced stats can back that).
they have golden glove and silver slugger awards. they constantly fuck up the awards and give them to the most politically motivated winners (like Jeter getting a golden glove in 2010). since there are awards rewarding specific things like hitting and "fielding" that should mean that all players whom are great at their respective jobs get merit and are awarded accordingly - But that we also have the MVP which should not be bound by the limits of their playing time but rather their effectiveness in the teams wins.
think steve carlton and the 27-10 season. if there was no other offensive player who had outstanding numbers for that year, then you can consider carlton for the MVP.
i personally think the backlash against giving a pitcher the mvp will help in verlander's case... just like how king felix got the cy young last year... its the way of showing the voters are "progressive" in their process. now if they only were so progressive in the golden glove awards...
This is quite an insightful point, and I think a true one as well.
I was calling you Billy Beane because honestly I don't know what WAR even means. You know the whole money ball, putting a team together using OPS and other non-AVG, HR RBI stats, Its a compliment, besides wouldn't you want Brad Pitt playing you in a movie?
Edit: Oh and the MVP will be a Tiger but it will be Miguel Cabrera. Currently batting .333 nearly 30HR and almost 100RBI.
I posted a pictar of batman because you said "batsmen". It as kinda like a "Oh hai I am batman, u called?" kind of thing.
i mean, i understand why pitchers aren't normally considered for MVP, but it doesn't mean i don't think it makes sense. i'll admit i am completely bias as well.
i just view MVP as most valuable to your team. if you take Granderson off the yankees, they'd probably still be in first or a lock for a wild card spot. same can be said for Adrian Gonzalez. Verlander is 14 or 15-3 following a Tiger's loss, with a sub 2.00 ERA. He stops losing streaks. If he goes .500 following a loss, the Tigers are in a race. Instead, they can lock up the Central as early as tomorrow.
Actually Simmons wrote a nice article about this very same thing
Separate names with a comma.