Who Deserves the MVP?
Webster says something is valuable if it is of great
worth. From this we can say the most valuable player
should be the player of the greatest worth. The
greatest worth, in baseball and in any other sport,
means the player who does most to help his team win.
If a player does more to help his team win than any
other player, and his team doesn’t win, he is still
the most valuable player. We know how much a player
helps his team by looking at his statistics. If a
player has better statistics than any player in
baseball, assuming he’s not causing turmoil in the
clubhouse or isn’t an awful defensive player, that
player deserves the MVP award.
It is virtually impossible for a pitcher, in this day
and age, to help his team win more than an everyday
player. Therefore, a pitcher should never win the MVP
award. In the 1880’s, when pitchers threw everyday,
sure pitchers deserved MVP consideration, but not in
the modern game. Starting pitchers get about 35 to 40
starts a year, while a position player may play over
150 games a year and contribute on offense and
defense. There’s no way the best pitcher, in this day
and age, can help his team win more than the best
position player. Well, I suppose it could happen if
every position player in the league is having an awful
year and the best pitcher is having one of the
greatest seasons ever. But that’s not going to happen
anytime soon, as long as the game is played the way it
is.
There is no way a relief pitcher will help his team
win more than an everyday position player. Therefore,
relief pitchers should never win the MVP award (at
least not in the way. It is true that relievers pitch
everyday and many pitch in key situations, but they
only contribute on defense and they usually only pitch
three innings at the most. Everyday position players
come to bat in key situations, make defensive plays in
key situations and can make it where there really are
no “key” situations in a game because they could drive
in or score six runs so the game isn’t close. Giving
the MVP to a reliever is like giving it to a really
good pinch hitter. They both only contribute on one
side (either offense for pinch-hitters and defense for
relievers) and they both are only in a game for a
short time, although it may be in a “key situation.”
Alex Rodriguez is an MVP candidate. His offensive
numbers are as good as anyone’s, his defense is as
good as anyone’s (at the toughest position in the
game), and, as far as we know, he doesn’t cause
turmoil in the clubhouse. Rodriguez does more to help
his team win more than any player in the American
League, but he probably won’t win the award because
his teammates aren’t as good as Miguel Tejada’s.
Curt Schilling is not an MVP candidate. Neither is
John Smoltz or Eric Gagne. Because Barry Bonds is
again having one of the greatest seasons in baseball
history as an everyday position player. He’s done
more to help his team win than any player in the
National League.
Tejada, Schilling, Smoltz and Gagne are great players
having great seasons. They’ve all helped their teams
win. But Tejada hasn’t helped his team more than Arod
has helped his; and Schilling, Smoltz and Gagne
definitely haven’t helped their teams more than Bonds
has helped his.
Shaun Payne
Posted: September 16, 2002 at 01:00 AM |
18 comment(s)
Related News:
General
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Second, you can look at the number of plate appearances a starting pitcher is involved in versus a position player. Of course, each plate appearance involves a pitcher and a position player, but the position players rotate throughout a batting order. Over the course of a season, I believe that the best starting pitchers are involved in more plate appearances than any position player. And most people believe that the pitcher plays a significant role in the outcome of a plate appearance (probably more than half). So, according to this line of thinking, a starting pitcher can have more influence than any position player.
Third, position players play defense as well as hit. When their defensive values are considered, typically the best position players have more "value" than the best starting pitchers.
By the way, there is a hot topic in the air these days that relates to this last issue. Namely, the proper allocation of credit between pitchers and fielders for run prevention (i.e., turning balls in play into outs). I believe Mike Emeigh has written an article on this important topic.
If Randy Johnson faces 1000 batters, while Sammy Sosa comes to bat 700 times, and fields 300 times, aren't they all involved in 1000 plays?
Contrary to Rob Wood's assertion, the "pither's impact" on a pa basis has more to do with the batter than the pitcher, ON AVERAGE. That is, if you only knew the pitcher or you only knew the batter, on average, it's better to only know the batter.
In any case, if Randy Johnson is +8 wins over average, or +10 wins over replacement (or whatever he actually is), then he is more valuable than a hitter that is +7 wins over average, or +9 wins over replacement.
Barry Bonds and A-Rod are having 2 of the best seasons possible, hitting-wise. From that standpoint, it's hard for a pitcher to do better.
Thus, those 1000 batters Randy Johnson faces are shared with his fielders, and he does not receive all the credit for facing them.
Anyway, I too have done a great deal of research into the issue of whether the identity of the pitcher or the hitter plays a greater role in the outcome of plate appearances. This is not quite as simple as first appears since it is really the conflation of two different issues. First, fixing the pitcher and hitter, who has more influence on the outcome? Second, over all plate appearances in a league-season, say, is there more variability in the abilities among hitters or pitchers (more variability implies greater information in knowing the specific identity)?
I have come to the conclusion that there is more variability in the abilities (performances) among hitters than among pitchers. The simplest explanation is that hitters also field; thus, some hitters are in the lineup due to their gloves. Thus, it appears that the identity of the batter is more important than the identity of the pitcher.
However, I have also concluded that the pitcher has more influence on the outcome of any specific plate appearance than does the batter. I have not yet written up my research, but my preliminary conclusion is that the split is roughly 60% pitcher and 40% hitter.
Rob: you had said "And most people believe that the pitcher plays a significant role in the outcome of a plate appearance (probably more than half). ". It is this statement that I was speaking against.
Charles: yes, I agreee. What I meant was that Randy was involved in 1000 plays. Assuming that 350 of those are K,BB,HR, that leaves 650 plays of which he is partly involved in. So, in effect, he is involved in 700 plays. Sammy would be involved in 850 plays. So, would you rather have a .750 player for 700 plays or a .650 player for 850 plays? It was the "There is no way" statement that I was going against. Probably of the top 30 players, only 6 or 7 would be pitchers, but that would be because of this "pa limitation". It is still very possible that a great pitcher could be better than a great hitter, alot more often than "in no way". But, hitters do have the advantage.
Rob: 60/40? I'd like to see it, because the very little that I did on the subect does not show this at all (in fact, the reverse).
I have NOT looked at a lot of data, just a sprinkling. If anyone else has systematically looked at this issue, I'd be happy to defer to them.
If this is true, it is in large part because the pitcher has a great deal of control over whether or not the hitter strikes out, and quite a bit of control over whether or not he walks or hits a home run, and those three events make up about 1/4 to 1/3 of all plate appearances (in today's game, at any rate).
A SABR friend of mine - not Tom Tippett or Tom Ruane - helps design baseball simulations. He once made a comment that you can construct a good baseball simulation without considering the identity of the pitchers at all, but you can't do it without the hitters.
-- MWE
I have posted my research findings on the second issue at the Hall of Merit weblog, Distribution List Test thread, posted 8:33 pm August 1, 2002. The upshot is that the importance split between the identity of the batter vs the identity of the pitcher in influencing the outcome of the plate appearance has been remarkably steady at around 70/30 throughout baseball history.
Just to repeat though. This is not necessarily saying that the outcome of *each plate appearance* is influenced 70% by the batter and 30% by the pitcher (+fielders).
But I do think pitchers can on occasion be true MVPs. Take the NL in 1972, my all-time favorite example. Steve Carlton went 27-10 (with the 2nd lowest ERA in the league) for a Phillies team that went 30-87 without him. Do the math and check the record books: Without him, the Phillies were the equivalent of the 1962 Mets. With him, they played better than the 1927 Yankees (and remember, he didn't get to pitch against his own team---the 1927 Yankees went 21-1 against the last place Browns).
I think Carlton finished something like sixth that year in the MVP voting. To me, that was the most ridiculous result I've ever seen, with the possible exception of Hank Sauer over Robin Roberts in 1952. Those Phillies pitchers just don't get no respect.
If Randy Johnson faces 1000 batters and Sammy Sosa goes to the plate 700 times, (and both play the field) that says it all. You can split up the relative importance of hitting, pitching and fielding any way you want, but that is hair splitting.
Clearly the starting pitcher has a much greater impact on the games that he starts--let's just say 4-5X, just for the sake of argument--then that's another way of saying they each have the opportunity for approximately the same impact, at least they're in the same "ballpark."
So then it comes down to who was more effective? The past few years there is usually a batter who was more effective than the best pitchers. But certainly Steve Carlton, Denny McLain and Bob Gibson come to mind as pitchers who were deserving, and a pitcher having that kind of season in the absence of a really killer season by a position player could and should win it all.
Baseball Weekly has an MVP poll of its own staff writers ongoing. In the most recent, if I recall correctly, Curt Schilling was in the second ten and Randy Johnson had NO VOTES. Not one. This is nuts.
>But you know what? It is ARod's fault that he isnt on a good team. He decided to go to a bad team, and take up a 1/4 of their payroll. It was the choice and chance he made and took. Whether it is fair or not, he could have stayed with the Mariners for less money and he would have 2 MVP's award by the end of this season!
True, but how relevant to MVP discussion? I would say not, but the voters will say yes.
We recently had a controversy here in Minnesota because Kevin Garnett, he of the $23 mil/year salary, said he was NOT overpaid, he was underpaid because "I have to do everything for this team." A fan wrote a great letter into the local paper and said, basically, earth to Kevin: "You have to do everything for this team BECAUSE you ARE overpaid."
And if Soriano splits votes with Giambi, the writers who prefer Giambi ought to be held over for a urine test. Giambi is not having the year (and neither is G. Anderson) among the more traditional "sluggers" (ie. guys who play the corner positions) that Magglio Ordonez is having. Ordonez for most underrated.
It's a pretty sad situation when the first thing you do on with your MVP ballot is decide which teams are allowed to have guys in the running. Like I said, in the AL, the only teams eligible to have an MVP appear to be Oak-Ana-Min. Everybody else is either too bad or too good. What a stupid argument.
Thank god the Gints are in the race. After the knots the writers tied themselves into to deny Mac in '98 (Cards not good enough to have an MVP) or Belle in '94 (Indians too good, would have won it without him), would they deny Barry if the Gints were below .500? I guess they would.
As to Torii (two eyes) Hunter, I have to tell you his offense has fallen off dramatically the past month. He has dropped from about .310 to about .285 in about a month. 'Course the whole team has dropped off, offense, starting pitching, bullpen, the whole deal, and if Torii is the Twins' MVP (and he is that) then he's the guy who shoulda picked 'em up the last month. I'm afraid he has fallen on my MVP ballot, all the way to 7-8 in fact, and remember, I'm a Twins fan.
Here's an MVP idea nobody has thought of. Billy Koch. He has caught up to Steady Eddie Guardado in saves, he also has 10 wins (how did that happen), but a low ERA and also leads the league in appearances. I can't imagine he won 10 games by blowing 10 leads, with that ERA. Howe is throwing him into a lot of tie games, I would guess. He is having more impact than Guardado, to be sure, but also Smoltz or Gagne, though he doesn't get the ink. He seems to have Joe Rudi's disease. Overshadowed by Tejada I guess.
And I would go with Billy the Beane for exec of the year. Maybe Gardy for manager, 'cuz he hasn't had the starting pitching Howe has had.
Is somebody going to conduct an MVP ballot here at baseballprimer.com???
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main