Do you want precedent for the Triple Crowns, or for the awards?
Jimmie Foxx won the '33 Triple Crown and MVP, and Lefty Grove, who pretty much always almost won the pitching TC, was 5th in MVP voting and led the league in wins, but was 4th and 6th in the other two. That was for a 79-72 third place team.
I have a theory that it’s going to Kershaw *because *it’s a toss up. You look at Kershaw, Halladay, and Lee and it’s honestly a coin flip, but Kershaw is only 23 and Halladay won last year. Those are the types of things that I think the voters will take into account (if only subconsciously) as tie breakers.
My own argument against the park factor, while Dodger Stadium is pitcher friendly, Kershaw had to pitch in Colorado and Arizona too, two of the worst pitcher parks in the league. It doesn’t totally balance things out, but it’s something. But I am biased as all get out .
I’m already on record as saying that Verlander is a worthy candidate, so please don’t take this as an attempt at refuting you. I’m not questioning YOUR logic or YOUR motivations at all.
Rather, I’m wondering why Verlander seems to be a popular choice among sportswriters for MVP this year when so many other starting pitchers with comparable (or better) numbers haven’t gotten any consideration at all.
It looks to me as if Justin Verlander has had an excellent year, but not notably better than numerous other seasons put up by Cy Young Award winners from playoff bound teams.
Randy Johnson has had SEVERAL seasons much better than Verlander’s 2011 season, including some where his team (the Mariners or Diamondbacks) finished in first place. And yet Randy never finished higher than 6th in the MVP voting.
I could say the same thing for a lot of pitchers. Johan Santana was as good for the Twins in 2004 as Verlander has been this season, but was an afterthought in MVP voting.
Now, YOU weren’t the one who gave out those awards, so there’s no inconsistency on YOUR part. But there IS some inconsistency on the part of writers.
So, I’ll ask two questions:
What other starting pitchers would you have given the MVP award to in the past 20 years or so? That is, do you think Verlander has done something unique and special this year, or do you just think a lot of deserving starting pitchers have been shafted for a long time?
If Verlander had the same ERA but had “only” won 19 or 20 games, do you think writers would still see him as a leading contender? That is, are writers finally getting smart and reconsidering the value of pitchers? Or are they just over-awed by the number of wins he’s accrued?
Verlander is getting consideration for MVP because there isn’t an overwhelming consensus pick among the hitters.
Are they? I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if Halladay or Lee won it, though Kershaw is my choice.
But Kershaw has the “triple crown”, leading the league in ERA, strikeouts, and wins.
He also leads in WHIP, BAA, OBP against, SLG against, and OPS against.
By my quick count, Kershaw has started 12 games against top 10 MLB offenses.
Cliff Lee 9.
Halladay only 8.
Kershaw has a complete game 2-hit shutout of Detroit. Halladay can’t match that.
Lee on the other hand, pitched 3 consecutive complete game shutouts of Florida, St. Louis, and Boston. That’s ridiculous. As I said, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if any of them won it, it’s incredibly close.
Verlander not only won 24, but he had 16 stops. the Tigers would lose a couple games and start to look like they were unraveling. Then Verlander would end the slide immediately. That took a lot of pressure off the team.
The Tiger staff had an ERA of 2.20 during September. That is not Verlander and nobody else. But during the season, his stops were very important to confidence and morale. Yet I think Cabrera is the MVP for the Tigers. Watching him hit all year was a treat. He scared the opposition so badly they walked him over and over. Then Martinez would blow the strategy up.
There’s truth to that, certainly. In some of Randy Johnson’s best seasons, he was up against somebody like Barry Bonds, who was putting up insane offensive numbers. There’s no Barry Bonds in the A.L. this year. But even in Randy’s best season, he wasn’t finishing 2nd to Bonds. He was finishing 6th, 7th, or 11th!
What that suggests is that, not so long ago, MANY sportswriters just weren’t open to the possibility of a starting pitcher being the MVP, period.
So, what’s changed? Justin Verlander had a great year, yes- but no better than MANY pitchers have had in recent years. And MOST of those comparable pitchers got little or no MVP consideration.
Kershaw has 12 starts against the top 10 offenses in MLB. 6 against the middle 10. And 15 against the bottom 10.
Halladay has 8 against the top 10. 8 against the middle 10. And 16 against the bottom 10.
Lee has 9 against the top 10. 6 against the middle 10. And 17 against the bottom 10.
And Kershaw leads in (among other things) ERA, strikeouts, wins, WHIP, BAA, OBP against, SLG against, and OPS against.
#1 starters always have a lot of “stops.” They’re following the crappiest starter on the team, the game their team is likeliest to lose.
But Dawson was a crappy pick. And Sutcliffe would’ve been
Yeah. I want Kershaw to get it. But you still can’t ignore park factors.
RickJay really shouldn’t be surprised (he really can’t see a good argument for Kershaw? They’re close.), but his point is right on. I want Kershaw to win, bit I think have to vote for Halladay.
Kemp is (or should be) a no-brainer.
Pitchers generally win MVP Awards when there is no position player who is clearly a sportswriter favourite.
Jose Bautista was awesome but played in Canada for an 81-81 team.
Jacoby Ellsbury was awesome but his team choked spectacularly.
Duston Pedroia, see Jacoby Ellsbury.
Miguel Cabrera is awesome but is disliked and is seen as a defensive anchor.
Curtis Granderson was awesome but didn’t hit for much of an average.
If you think of the pitchers who’ve won MVP Awards it’s always in years with no clear positional favourite. Willie Hernandez in 1984 - who’s the spectacular position player choice there? Cal Ripken was probably the best player but his season looked no better than the season before. Clemens in 1986. Eckersely in 1992 - I’d have voted for Alomar, but his hitting numbers don’t jump out at you in any one way… or Thomas, but his team did not contend.
As a Red Sox fan, I’m upset that Ellsbury’s MVP chances are probably torpedoed because he was unable to single-handedly carry the morons around him to the playoffs for a whole month. He sure tried: he hit .358/.400/.667 with 8 HRs in September and was pretty much the only guy consistently producing.
But I’m biased.
Rickjay claimed that Halladay pitched against a division with better offenses.
That is factually incorrect. Neither team can play itself, and when you remove the Phillies and Dodgers the NL West scored more runs than the NL East.
So Kershaw pitched against a tougher division, faced 4 more top 10 MLB offenses than Halladay, and led in ERA, strikeouts, wins, WHIP, BAA, OBP against, SLG against, and OPS against.
Note that I’m not saying Halladay and Lee aren’t deserving, I’m just making the case for Kershaw.
As for park factor, it is very tricky to use. Wrigley went from the 3rd best offensive park in 2010 to 23rd in 2011. There were no radical changes to the park to explain that. San Francisco was rated a better offensive park than Philadelphia in 2008 and 2009.
This link has a park factor based on a 5 year stretch. Dodger stadium is slightly below average for offense, while Philadelphia is slightly above average. However, it also has San Francisco above average for offense, which makes me wonder.
It is even more tricky to use it for individual pitchers, since they have different styles. A huge stadium is good for pitchers who get lots of fly balls, but may be bad for a strikeout pitcher.
Phillies fan. I’d go with Kershaw.
This is all the more reason I think Ellsbury deserves the MVP (how he performed in the pressure of a pennant race.) When people make the argument that no offensive player had a great year, so Verlander should get it, I strongly disagree. Maybe our perceptions are skewed by the so-called “steroid era?”
As a Yankee fan, I’d love to make an argument for Granderson but he faded in September. So I tip my cap and call Ellsbury my Papi.
Cabrera led the league in BA 344., doubles, OBP, .
He was 2nd in Slg, OPS, He was in the top 10 in HRs in a pitchers park.
He had a damn good year.
Here’s a challenge: Make the AL Cy Young case for anyone other than Verlander. (Not to say it exists, it’ll just be a fun mental exercise)
Maybe this makes me hopelessly old school, but any pitcher who pulls a Triple Crown should win the Cy Young, which to me makes Verlander and Kershaw both no-brainers for the award. I’d also be inclined to go with Verlander for the AL MVP, but there are a handful of worthy candidates for that award, though none are standouts, as has been noted upthread.
Kemp, to my mind deserves the NL MVP. Not only was he in the running for the NL batting Triple Crown, he also was in the top 5 for steals and is a Gold Glove calibre center fielder. That’s a pretty outstanding performance, in spite of playing for a middle-of-the-pack ball club.
Fangraphs WAR:
CC Sabathia: 7.1
Verlander: 7.0
And that’s even before you take into account the vastly more difficult task of playing in the Big Apple.
Note: This is merely a test, not an actual argument.
I am having a heck of a time understanding how they came up with those numbers.