Verlander gets the AL MVP! (also)

Hurri-Comet

Hurri-Comet

New member
Congrats to the Detroit Tiger pitcher whom had a fabulous season. First time since 1985 an AL pitcher wins the MVP. Roger (Rocket) Clemons.
 
 
Glad he got the honor/recognition he deserved. Hope he stays healthy enough to have the HOF career he's capable of.
 
Think Bautista or Ellsbury should have gotten it. He didn't even play in 79% of Detroit's games this year. Jim Ingraham had a good article on why he left him out. In it he said it would be like a QB winning the MVP after playing in 3 games all season long. Also position players have wear and tear to deal with that pitchers don't have to worry about pitching every 5th game. I am in agreement with him that pitchers shouldn't be in the MVP discussion.
 
Smalls said:
I disagree.

In the games Verlander pitched he has far more impact on the result than someone who bats 4 times and catches 2 fly balls or 4 ground balls. How many games did Bautista or Ellsbury not impact the outcome of the game or the outcome would have been the same if he had not played? I know there is no good way to answer that question other than a questionable WAR stat.

It would be pretty safe to say that if Verlander didn't start those 34-36 games the Tigers would have won maybe 10 at best by his replacement. So he was mainly responsible for at least a 15 game swing and maybe more if you count no decisions that the Tigers may not have won with someone else on the mound.

As far as wear and tear pitchers are injured more often and more severe than position players.

In the end I would bet that every GM in MLB would trade every position player in the league straight up for Verlander and know that they got the better end of the deal.
Click to expand...
Nice post. Concur.
 
Going by your rationale, a starting pitcher would get the award every year. He had absolutely no impact on 80% of the team's games. I would venture to guess that Ellsbury and Bautista impacted the game in more than 20% of the team's games. Just a guess...
 
I'm pretty indifferent on giving a pitcher an MVP award. BUT, Verlander had a very impressive season. A no-hitter, the triple crown in the AL, and leading his team to the playoffs all at least warrant consideration for the award. On top of that, no hitter in the AL was truely THAT outstanding. Ellsbury (finished 2nd in AL MVP voting) was the AL Comeback Player of the Year and Bautista proved 2010 was no fluke. HOWEVER, I am against giving the MVP award to a player who's team did not make the playoffs. Therefore, I'm fine with Verlander being the AL MVP.
 
Doing per game comparisons doesn't make any sense. Verlander wasn't in 80% of the games. The sample size isn't even close to the same and they are difference circumstances entirely.

And again by your rationale, a pitcher would win every year because you are doing in game chance comparisons where the pitcher holds the ball before every pitch he throws.
 
Smalls said:
Just used the "chances" comparision to show pitchers are far more involved than given credit for. What Verlander did with those chances is what warrants winning the MVP.

Teams also show what they feel is most valuable during the draft. This year for example they took 19 of 33 pitchers in the 1st round......because they are looking for the next Verlander.
Click to expand...

There are also far less stud pitchers available in college than position players. There are 9 batters in a lineup after all. Pretty obvious.....
 
Smalls said:
Yep, just like there are far less stud aces like Verlander.....that is why he is the MVP....obvious:)

Throughout the whole draft, not just the 1st round, pitching is highly sought after. Even though they only make up about a 3rd of a MLB roster.
Click to expand...

So once again you are saying that a pitcher should always be MVP. There are always stud aces each season. They still only play in 20% of the team's games.

There are far less stud aces available in the draft because it is 1 position. There are 9 batting positions. So of course there would be scarcity on 1 position over 9 in a draft. And again that is a very obvious point....
 
Pitchers miss a lot more than position players. That is the connection. They are also harder to predict at the next level.

There are also 5 starting pitchers and 5-7 relievers on a team. Only 1 position player at each position starts for a team. They play most every day whereas the pitchers pitch once every five days.

So yeah less predictable and more spots for different players to play at the pitching positions.

You are acting like there is 1 pitcher per team in your evaluation. That is the problem.
 
I can see your side of things. The only thing I didn't was the draft stuff. I mean there are 5 starting pitchers and probably 7 relievers on each team. You usually use only one everyday player at each position. So of course the general pitching spot in the draft would be more highly called than any one position player. Plus the pitchers are harder to project at the next level.

I just think with your argument, a SP would win MVP each and every year. There is always a stud pitcher that contributes in 20% of his team's games.

Keep in mind also when talking about Ellsbury that he produced those numbers in a leadoff role rather than a run producing spot in the order.
 
Again more pitchers are drafted because there are more different positions to fill on the rosters. You have 5 different starting pitchers and 7 different relievers. You only have one everyday player at most positions. You need more different people to rotate in at the pitching positions than the hitting positions so it makes sense to draft more different ones. Plus the pitchers miss more at the next level.

Also don't tell me to watch games. I have seen plenty over the years to know that the strike zone is shrinking. Every baseball fan knows that though....

Run producing is usually thought of as the guy driving runs in rather than the guy scoring the runs. I am talking more about RBI's than runs scored. That is why they are called runs batted in.
 
MentorGrad2002 said:
Again more pitchers are drafted because there are more different positions to fill on the rosters. You have 5 different starting pitchers and 7 different relievers. You only have one everyday player at most positions. You need more different people to rotate in at the pitching positions than the hitting positions so it makes sense to draft more different ones. Plus the pitchers miss more at the next level.

Also don't tell me to watch games. I have seen plenty over the years to know that the strike zone is shrinking. Every baseball fan knows that though....

Run producing is usually thought of as the guy driving runs in rather than the guy scoring the runs. I am talking more about RBI's than runs scored. That is why they are called runs batted in.
Click to expand...

So you consider all 13 pitchers carried on a roster the equivalent to a starting position player? He's right about teams placing a higher premium on pitchers in the draft, no question....I can't believe someone is even arguing the point.
 
eastside_purple said:
So you consider all 13 pitchers carried on a roster the equivalent to a starting position player? He's right about teams placing a higher premium on pitchers in the draft, no question....I can't believe someone is even arguing the point.
Click to expand...

No I don't. My point is you can find one position player at each position and be set most everyday. Therefore you don't need to draft 10 2B in a draft. When talking about pitchers in general, you need many more to fit a variety of pitching tasks. Pitchers are harder to project at the next level so they are drafted more for that reason as well.

I never once said more pitchers aren't selected. I just gave my reasons why.
 
Smalls said:
How can you leave runs out of the equation?

RBI-R= just BI

Run production is exactly exactly as I described in my prior post.

R+RBI-HR

The equation for stopping run production is even simpler;

Verlander (MVP)
Click to expand...

When talking about a run producing position you are talking about RBI, HR etc. Leadoff hitter is not considered a run producing position. They are the table setters.
 
MentorGrad2002 said:
No I don't. My point is you can find one position player at each position and be set most everyday. Therefore you don't need to draft 10 2B in a draft. When talking about pitchers in general, you need many more to fit a variety of pitching tasks. Pitchers are harder to project at the next level so they are drafted more for that reason as well.

I never once said more pitchers aren't selected. I just gave my reasons why.
Click to expand...

So you don't think pitching is the most important position on a team? Cause that's why I think they are drafted at a premium.
 
Not pitching in general. A stud ace is very important but middle to back end guys and many relievers are interchangable. You can find many options and don't need absolute studs there.

You need both though. Ask Philly where all that pitching got them this season. And outside of Carpenter on St Louis, the staff isn't really imposing to say the least.

I think drafting more pitchers has more to do with needing more to fill positions on the team. You only need 1 1B guy really so you don't need to draft 10 in a draft if you have Pujols. Even if you have an ace on your staff, you still need a whole rotation and a bullpen. There are more pieces that rotate in the overall pitching staff plus they are harder to project at the next level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top