Verlander, hyperbole, and the MVP

In terms of good material to blog about, nothing gets any better than the hand-wringing and debate that comes about as a result of the end-of-year MVP voting in Major League Baseball. Invariably, we are forced to bicker about what the word "valuable" means in a baseball context. Sometimes, a random writer will even conclude that a small white guy with no baseball skills has enough "grit" and "competitiveness" to not only overcome his lack of measurable on field accomplishments, but to trump the actual accomplishments of other, far superior players! (Did you know that David Eckstein has actually twice come closer to winning an MVP than Adam Dunn ever has? Really!)

This year the voters of the BBWAA are faced with yet another ball-buster: should (can?) a pitcher win the MVP?

In his latest column, Bill Madden makes a terrible case that Jason Verlander should be this year's AL MVP.

That age-old baseball debate - should pitchers be able to win the MVP award? - rages more furiously than ever this year with Justin Verlander compiling one of the most dominant seasons in history

OK, Verlander is having a very good season, but let's not go overboard with the hyperbole. His ERA is 2.44, tied for first with Jered Weaver. He's 3rd in the league in k/9 with 9.12, and has pitched the most innings in the league. He leads the league in WHIP, with 0.91. He has a .190 BAA, good for best in the league. All of this means that Justin Verlander is almost definitely the right candidate to win the AL Cy Young.

But one of the most dominant seasons EVER? His ERA+ (earned run average adjusted) this season is 166, which would rank as the 207th best ERA+ season of all time. Heck, Felix Hernandez posted a better ERA+ LAST SEASON. In 1999 and 2000, Pedro Martinez posted two of the top ten seasons in ERA+.

So no, Verlander is not having what could be considered even close to one of the "most dominant seasons in history."


In the history of the MVP award, pitchers have won it 18 times, the last being Oakland A's closer Dennis Eckersley in 1992, who led the AL in saves for the AL West champions (51-for-54) and had a 1.91 ERA.

Yes, and thankfully the MVP has not been awarded to a relief pitcher ever since, considering that someone who plays 80 innings the entire season (Eckersley's total in '92) will never be the (actual) most valuable player in the league.

What has made the MVP the most intriguing of all the sports awards is the very definition of it "most valuable - which the creating Baseball Writers Association has left to the interpretation of the voters, other than to say it is not necessarily the "player of the year."

And even though "games played" is listed among the criteria voting writers are told to consider, it has been generally assumed that it was put in there only as a caution for voting for a player who hit .390 or something in a limited number of games.

I'm unsure why Madden brings this up like it supports his point, considering that, according to this criteria, Verlander would not be considered as valuable as a position player who plays 150+ games.

In any case, the writers, by virtue of all the times they've voted the award to a pitcher, have largely ignored the "games played" criteria.

Best example of that was 1934 when the Yankees' Lou Gehrig had one of the greatest seasons of all time, playing every game and leading the league in batting (.363), homers (49), RBI (165), slugging (.706), and on-base percentage (.465), but was beaten out for the MVP by Tigers' catcher-manager Mickey Cochrane who played in only 129 games and led the league in nothing but was obviously given credit for managing the Tigers to the pennant.

This is dumb on multiple levels.

1. Madden all but admits it was a weird (and probably dubious) decision, given how much better Gehrig was at actually playing baseball that season.

2. 129 games is much more than the 35 or so Verlander will play this year.

3. Madden states that Cochrane won the award because he was also the manager of the team; as far as I know, Jim Leyland has managed the Tigers this season, without any input from Justin Verlander.

4. Pointing out a single, outside-the-norm MVP vote for a player-manager in 1934 is probably not the most effective or coherent strategy for arguing that Justin Verlander should win the MVP for pitching in 2011.

And here's why: Of all those candidates, none is more indispensable to his team than Verlander (22-5, 2.44 ERA), who is on his way to becoming only the fifth AL pitcher since 1950 to win the triple crown of pitching (wins/ERA/strikeouts) and who is 15-3 following a Tiger loss this season.

1. We've covered this: W-L record is stupid.

2. The Tigers are 23-8 when Verlander starts. They are 19-8 when Rick Porcello starts, and 19-11 when Max Scherzer starts. The conclusion I draw from this? The Tigers, regardless of who is pitching, seem to be a pretty good team, though they are at their best when Justin Verlander, their best pitcher, pitches for them.

That means that they probably wouldn't have lost all 15 of those games Verlander won after Tiger losses.

3. Verlander, according to Fangraphs, is a 6.4 WAR player this year. There are five position players, and one pitcher, that have a higher WAR this year.


if Leyland really feels that pitchers, by virtue of their 35 or so starts, should not be considered for the Most Valuable Player Award, then why is it so many starting pitchers, Roy Halladay, Josh Beckett, Jake Peavy et al, are the highest-paid players on their team?


That settles it. Jake Peavy for MVP.

Marrage Agenct