First a little award history: The Baseball Writers started to give out the Cy Young Award for best pitcher in 1956. For the first 11 years of the award, only one Cy Young Award was given out, covering both the American and National League. Over those 11 years, two pitchers — Don Newcombe in that first year, and Sandy Koufax in 1963 — swept both the Cy Young and MVP award.
Then in 1967*, for the first time, the writers handed out a Cy Young Award in each the AL and NL. That year, Mike McCormick and Jim Lonborg both won 22 games and won the awards. Jim Bunning probably should have won it in the National League, and maybe Dean Chance or Joe Horlen in the American League, but you know how much people love those wins.
*Speaking of awards and 1967, you probably know off the top of your head, Carl Yastrzemski won the Triple Crown that year. In addition to that, he had one of the great final months in baseball history and led the Impossible Dream Red Sox to the World Series. I’d say that no matter how you look at baseball — stat oriented, gut oriented, clutch oriented, believer in the heart, whatever — you had to vote Yaz as MVP. When you take into account the countless ways people look at baseball, I would say that Yaz in 1967 was the the all-time MVP slam dunk. Right?
No. Yaz received 19 of 20 votes. The other vote? Minneapolis’ Max Nichols voted for Cesar Tovar. You know what Cesar Tovar hit in 1967? .267/.325/.365. Obviously, Wins Above Replacement was not a thing in 1967, but Tovar still finished ninth ON THE TWINS. I think we can retire the trophy. That’s the worst individual vote in Baseball Writers history. Max Nichols went on to have a long and admirable career in journalism, by the way. That was, however, the last year he covered baseball.
Anyway: When they decided to give a Cy Young to the best pitcher in each league, the writers certainly could have made pitchers ineligible for the MVP award. That would have made as much sense as anything else. But they didn’t. In fact, they made it very clear to the voters that pitchers were eligible for both awards. And in 1968, for the only time, pitchers swept the Cy Young and MVP in both leagues. That, of course, was the year of the pitcher. Bob Gibson had his legendary 1.12 ERA. Denny McLain won his legendary 31 games. And it seemed likely that even with the Cy Young Award, pitchers would continue to be major factors in the MVP voting.
But, in general, pitchers have not been factors at all, especially in recent years. Yes, Tom Seaver almost won the award in 1969 — he got the same number of first place votes as winner Willie McCovey but finished 22 points behind — and Vida Blue did win the MVP in 1971 in another year dominated by pitching. And yes, for a while there the MVP voters in the American League had a bizarre little love affair with closers — Rollie Fingers won the thing in 1981, Willie Hernandez in 1984, Dennis Eckersley in 1992 and other closers like Sparky Lyle, Goose Gossage, Dan Quisenberry, Jose Mesa, Randy Myers all finished in the Top 5. You would hope that voters have lost that particular fascination.
But since Blue, the only STARTER to win the MVP award was Roger Clemens in 1986. And the only other starters over the last 40 years who were serious threats to win the award were Ron Guidry in 1978 (2nd to Jim Rice), Greg Maddux in 1995 (3rd to Barry Larkin and Dante Bichette) and, most famously, Pedro Martinez in 1999 (2nd to Pudge 2.0 Rodriguez).
There have been two pretty stark schools of thought on the subject. Some think pitchers are getting jobbed. Over the last 10 years, not a single starting pitcher has finished in the Top 5 in the MVP voting and only one, Johan Santana in 2006, received any first-place votes. He received one.
Some, on the other hand, feel pitchers shouldn’t even get the few votes they do get. As Brilliant Reader Tom writes in: “They don’t allow you to win both the main actor and the supporting actor for the same performance at the Oscars.”
As a baseball observer, I’m actually kind of neutral on the subject. I do have some respect for the argument that pitchers already have the Cy Young Award. And I do believe that pitchers and everyday players have strikingly different roles and responsibilities, meaning it isn’t easy to compare the value of the two.
Then again, nobody said it was supposed to be easy. And as an MVP voter, I’m bound by the letter of the law which pointedly say: “Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters.” Yep: Thems the rules. And, deep down, I suspect that I lean that way anyway. It seems to me that if a pitcher is the best player in baseball, then he should win the MVP award.
But here’s the thing: I’m not entirely sure that can happen anymore. And the reason is this: Pitchers roles have so dramatically changed over the years. Look back: Between 1931 and 1952, 11 pitchers won the MVP award. Four of those won during World War II, when offense was way down. Now, look at how many innings those pitchers pitched:
Lefty Grove (1931): 288 innings
Carl Hubbell (1933): 308 innings
Dizzy Dean (1934): 311 innings
Carl Hubbell (1936): 304 innings
Bucky Walters (1939): 319 innings
Mort Cooper (1942): 278 innings
Spud Chandler (1943): 253 innings
Hal Newhouser (1944): 312 innings
Hal Newhouser (1945): 313 innings
Jim Konstanty (1950): 152 innings — closer
Bobby Shantz (1952): 279 innings
There are exceptions, but six of those pitchers threw 300 innings. That’s also what Koufax threw when he won the MVP, what Gibson threw, what McLain threw, Vida Blue threw too. Well, since 2000, the most innings anyone has pitched was Roy Halladay’s 266 innings in 2003. Justin Verlander, who has had an amazing year where he has thrown at least 100 pitches and six innings every single time out*, will still probably fall short of that that 266 innings.
*In today’s world, this Verlander streak of six-inning games is amazing. If Verlander can keep that up through the end of the year, he might be only the second pitcher over the last 30 years to have 35 games of six or more innings in a season. The other? I wouldn’t have guessed it either: Curt Schilling in 2002.
The game has changed. I realize people don’t like admitting this. I know many still want to credit starting pitchers with wins and losses, like they did in Old Hoss Radbourn’s day when pitchers finished what they started. I know they may want to believe — as my friend, CBS Sportsline’s Danny Knobler keeps insisting on saying — that’s it’s a “pitcher’s job to win games.” But I don’t think that’s right. Pitchers never won and lost games on their own, but it becomes less and less true every year. Justin Verlander is having this incredible season, and he has completed four of his 29 starts. Four. That last Tigers starter to win the MVP, Denny McLain, made six more starts than Verlander is likely to make, completed 20 more games than Verlander is likely to complete, threw 75 more innings than Verlander is likely to throw.
Let’s go back to Baseball Reference’s WAR for a second. The Top nine WAR seasons ever are all 1880s pitchers, led indeed by Old Hoss with a staggering 20.3 WAR in 1884 when he went 59-12 and threw 678 innings. But you don’t have to go back that far to see the effect of innings pitches. From 1968 to 1986, when the best most rugged of pitchers often threw 275 innings, pitchers led their league in WAR 16 times.
The Top WAR seasons over that time:
1. Steve Carlton, 1972 (12.2)
2. Joe Morgan, 1975 (12.0)
3. Bob Gibson, 1968 (11.9)
4. Dwight Gooden, 1985 (11.7)
5. Robin Yount, 1982 (11.5)
6. Bob Gibson, 1969 (11.0)
7. Rod Carew, 1977 (10.9)
8. Wilbur Wood, 1971 (10.7)
9. Gaylord Perry, 1972 (10.5)
(tie). Mike Schmidt, 1975 (10.5)
Six of the 10 are pitchers. So, you can see, the best pitchers and hitters, at least by WAR, were providing about the same value. But since 2000, only one pitcher has led the league in WAR, and it’s probably not one you were thinking: It was Zack Greinke in 2009.
The Top 10 WARs since 2000 (and to make it fair, I’ll only count Barry Bonds once):
1. Barry Bonds, four times, (10.3 to 12.5)
2. Sammy Sosa, 2001 (11.4)
3. Alex Rodriguez, 2000 (11.0)
4. Albert Pujols, 2003 (10.9)
5. Jason Giambi, 2001 (10.3)
6. Adrian Beltre, 2001 (10.1)
(tie) Pedro Martinez, 2000 (10.0)
8. Alex Rodriguez, 2007 (9.9)
9. Albert Pujols, 2008 (9.6)
10. Albert Pujols, 2004 (9.4)
So, one pitcher is in the Top 10 — and that was Pedro way back in 2000. And you still have a few more to go — Bret Boone, Scott Rolen, Pujols again — before you get to another pitcher. Obviously, this is only one measurement, but it’s a constant measurement and it seems to show what should be obvious: That with the five man rotation, with pitch counts, with bullpens getting larger, with starters completing fewer and fewer games and throwing fewer and fewer innings, the starting pitchers value has been diminishing. That’s not to say that a pitcher can’t still be the league’s most valuable player. But the new order should be considered. Hitters are still playing 150 or more games, still getting 700 plate appearances, still contributing the way they were in the 1950s and 60s and 70s and 80s. Starting pitchers, largely, are not.
That is not to say, by the way, that Justin Verlander in particular, or perhaps one of those Phillies pitchers should not be considered for MVP. Attention should be paid to the spectacular year — Guidry in 1978, Gooden in 1984, Maddux in 1995, Pedro in 1999. No, it’s only to say that the voters, without making a public announcement about it, have more or less stopped considering pitchers to be MVP candidates. And there could be something to that.
Yeah… but Pedro not winning in 1999 is still a crock.
Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing another award, a hitters only award. Give it to the best hitter. Period. No “valuable” arguments, no “only on contending teams”, and perhaps not even factoring in position or defense…just give it to the best hitter, ala the Cy Young. Then the MVP can go to whoever the writers think was most valuable using all kinds of random criteria, some of which a few seem to have made up in their heads, at whatever position that person plays.
The hitters have the Silver Slugger, but that’s a position by position thing, it’s not quite the same.
Is there any real reason that hasn’t been done already? I mean, people like awards. It’s another award for fans, writers, and play by play/color guys to talk about.
Personally I’m not automatically against a pitcher winning it if they’ve been that much better, but I have a hard time getting around the fact that a starting pitcher only participates in roughly a fifth of a teams games. I know Buster Olney has been pushing the idea that Verlander has been involved in more at bats than any hitter, and I get that. There’s a lot of value in that, especially pitching a lot of innings, saving the bullpen, etc., that can have an effect on future games. But a hitter who wins the MVP will, generally, participate in the vast majority of a teams games. They are actively contributing in some way, positively or negatively (and if they’re winning the MVP, presumably more positive than negative) to nearly every single game in a season. Pitchers simply cannot say that.
I keep seeing the following argument thrown around by people who think that pitchers should get MVP consideration: Many pitchers face more batters over the course of a season than most hitters have plate appearances.
Maybe I’m missing something, but that doesn’t change anything for me. Those batters faced are all condensed into, what, 30 games? For a position player, his plate appearances are spread out across 150+ games. The impact is completely different. It’s a misleading argument that needs to be addressed before it gains more ground.
Just to be picky- TODAY, it’s true that you can’t be nominated for both the Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor Oscars for the same performance, but that wasn’t always true. Barry Fitzgerald, for one, was nominated for both awards in 1944, for his performance in the Bing Crosby hit “Going My Way.”
“Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing another award, a hitters only award. Give it to the best hitter. Period. No “valuable” arguments, no “only on contending teams”, and perhaps not even factoring in position or defense…just give it to the best hitter, ala the Cy Young.”
We have the Hank Aaron Award, about which nobody cares.
Kyle, the Hank Aaron award seems to be what you’re thinking of
Even the voters don’t care, because Derek Jeter won it twice.
In the early years of the Academy Awards, Best Actor & Actress awards were for a full year’s body of work, not just for one picture as they are now.
“Maybe I’m missing something, but that doesn’t change anything for me. Those batters faced are all condensed into, what, 30 games? For a position player, his plate appearances are spread out across 150+ games.”
That could just as easily be turned around the other way: a position player gets only 4 or 5 plate appearances a game, he might go multiple games in a row without significant chances to drive in runs, and if he plays, say, right field, he might get very few fielding chances per game. That’s why, after playing 150+ games, even an elite player might only be worth 7 or 8 wins more than a AAA scrub. Which is often about how many wins an elite pitcher is worth too. I don’t see how batters faced # being “condensed” does anything to delegitimize pitchers.
I understand and largely agree with Joe Poz’s argument here. I just don’t think it’s fair to weigh present day pitchers’ MVP candidacies’ against pitchers of yore. For all we know, when pitchers routinely threw 300 innings and made 40 starts, they should’ve been winning MVPs every season. I do think that pitchers are less likely to be deserving to win nowadays. I also think that particularly good seasons, like Verlander this year (2nd in Baseball Reference’s WAR rankings, by the way, ahead of Ellsbury, Pedroia, AGon, and Granderson) or Pedro in 1999 deserve to be considered, as possibly win.
Also, I believe the Hank Aaron award is fan voted, at least partially, which I imagine diminishes its perceived relevance, fair or not. MLB doesn’t really give it much fanfare, nor does the media. It gets less attention than the Gold Gloves.
“They are actively contributing in some way, positively or negatively (and if they’re winning the MVP, presumably more positive than negative) to nearly every single game in a season. Pitchers simply cannot say that.”
I think this is a bit of an over-romanticization of the impact of any one player. The non-pitchers who make the most impact play by play are the ones who don’t get much fanfare unless they hit well: catchers, shortstops, and centerfielders. And of course, their defensive value means these players tend to be weak hitter, and therefore rarely win MVP. The best hitter in the world can’t do anything if his lineup doesn’t turn over enough to get him more than 3 or 4 PAs per game.
As Joe Poz has pointed out many a time, baseball is a team game, and even the greatest individuals can only have so much influence. In basketball, the loss of one star can cost a team 35 wins in an 82-game season. In baseball, even the best players are rarely worth more than 10 wins, all by themselves, over the course of 162 games. I admit, in the modern game, as starting pitchers pitch fewer innings, those do tend to be position players.
Aaron, can you explain your logic? I don’t understand why condensing the pitcher’s batters faced into fewer games makes each individual batter faced less important.
And Joe, since you mentioned eckersley winning the MVP in 1992, he did happen to lead all AL pitchers in fangraphs win probability added and finished second among all AL players, though about 2 WPA behind frank Thomas.
Not that I’m a Dodgers fan, but what about the 1988 campaign of Orel Hershiser? Seemed to me that 59 shutout innings streak said something about his value to his team in much the same spectacular way that maybe only Clemens had in 1986.
There is a hitters’ award already — the Hank Aaron Award. Been around since 1999. So let’s stop with the “there should be a hitters award” advocacy, since it is misplaced, and simply start talking about the Aaron. And we can all move on from such rampant ignorance and pointless politicking.
Pitchers who deliver a sufficiently worthy performance should win the MVP that season. Unfortunately too many voters think otherwise. In a more perfect world, those voters who cannot — CANNOT — bring themselves to vote for a pitcher (worth voting for), would disqualify themselves from voting and return their ballot for consideration by a more enlightened voter. But we don’t live in that world; we live in the one where at least one AL voter in 1999 refused to vote for Martinez (in any ballot slot) simply because Pedro was a pitcher. We’d all be better off without that guy participating.
As it is, the “pitchers shouldn’t win MVP” people are getting their way anyway. Why isn’t this enough for them?
Sam,
For me it’s a matter of context and scale. Take an individual game, for example: A pitcher might face 30-35 batters in a single game while a hitter might only get four plate appearances. Despite being involved in way less appearances, a hitter can still have just as big of an impact on a single game as a pitcher who faces 30 guys. Spread that out over an entire season, and that’s my point.
To be clear, I think there is an argument to be made for pitchers being considered for the MVP. Throwing out raw plate appearance and batters faced numbers isn’t a part of that argument, in my opinion.
An awful lot of that top 10 since 2000 are considered PED inflated seasons. I suspect that now that PEDs are at least somewhat under control, more pitchers may top the WAR lists. This year, Halladay leads the NL by at least one count.
David Schoenfield just covered this same topic at ESPN, and made this valid point re: Verlander:
“Looking at Verlander’s 216 innings shows that he has pitched 18.6 percent of the Tigers’ total innings (1161) while the team’s best offensive player and marginal MVP candidate, Miguel Cabrera, has logged 577 plate appearances, or 11.5 percent of their 5,001 total plate appearances. So who is really making a bigger contribution? “
As if anyone needs any further evidence of the current uselessness of crediting pitcher wins, take a look at Verlander’s outing yesterday.
He left the game after 6 innings, with the score tied at 4. The Tigers scored 2 runs in the 7th to take a lead they wouldn’t relinquish. Verlander did not appear in the 7th, yet he was credited with the win. Go figure.
“Despite being involved in way less appearances, a hitter can still have just as big of an impact on a single game as a pitcher who faces 30 guys. Spread that out over an entire season, and that’s my point.”
That’s fair enough. However, hitters rarely have that level of impact on game by game basis. For the most part, an elite position player will consistently go, say 1-3 or 2-4 with a walk. That’ll lead to a great season overall, but they’ll rarely have the 4-4 with two HRs performance they’d need to have to have more individual impact than a dominant outing from a starting pitcher. Realistically, I think it evens out, at least nowadays (considering the diminished impact of starting pitchers) when a pitcher is particularly good. Think about it. Say, over five games, a great hitter goes 7-20 with five walks and two homers and two doubles. That’s a brilliant five game stretch (.350 avg, .600 OBP, .1000 SLG), but it’s unlikely that he ever had has much impact on any one game as a dominant starter who threw 8 shutout innings with 12 Ks. When the pitcher is as good as Verlander has been this year, it evens out.
Like Kyle, I didn’t know about the Hank Aaron award, and I follow baseball pretty closely (though clearly not as closely as others). But I think that’s a pretty good sign that the Aaron award is WAY under-promoted. They should give that award the prestige the Cy Young has (which would probably mean taking the vote away from the fans). But then we’d have one more award to bicker and moan about!
The Aaron award underpromoted? I don’t think it has been promoted period. I’ve been reading this blog for 3 years and I have never heard of it, nor do I recall Joe mentioning it.
The rules of the MVP clearly state that ALL players are eligible, including pitchers. So could someone please explain to me how a writer can flat out say “no, I am not voting for this guy because he is a pitcher” and not have his vote thrown out and his voting privileges taken away?
Can someone confirm that some Hall of Fame voters are writing in Pete Rose’s name each year they vote? Or is that a baseball legend? If it is true those guys should lose their vote also.
So what’s your stat for pitchers to compare eras? ERA+?
Aaron,
I think it is easy to quantify your argument. Value is a measure of number of plate appearances/batters faced, leverage, and performance vs a baseline. I think you’ll find that hitters and starting pitchers both have the same leverage (meaning sensitivity of the teams chance of winning/losing to the players performance in a given plate appearance). Relievers would have different leverages- closers and setup men will have high leverage, mopup relievers low leverage. The reason hitters and starters will have average leverage is that the manager has no control over the leverage- an elite starter or pitcher won’t be taken out of the game in a high leverage situation but also can’t be deliberately put in a high leverage situation. From there it is just a function of appearances and performance compared to league average or replacement level. The one advantage hitters have is that they are in the field for more defensive plays, but I think that is somewhat of a wash given that pitchers are involved in more plate appearances than hitters.
Above all else, the Hank Aaron Award exists because Bud Selig felt that baseball needed an award named after Hank Aaron. And that as much as anything explains why so few fans know about it.
Of course pitchers should be eligible for both awards. Cy Young is for the best pitcher that season. The decision to vote for someone for Cy Young can be made without reference to his value to his team. Hence, Greinke and Hernandez the last two seasons. Both played on bad teams, but they were clearly the best pitchers in their league those years.
MVP is, or should be, different. Yes, you have to have a great season, but that season also has to be valuable. If Francouer hits 50 home runs for the Royals, but the Royals finish last, or next to last, who cares? On the other hand, if MLB decides to create an award for best player of the year, then Francouer’s achievement might deserve consideration. Hence, a pitcher can be the best pitcher in the league and add lots of value to his team and win both MVP and Cy Young.
Yes, I have been reading the recent posts and comments and know that Joe, and many of the commenters on this blog, disagree with my position on the MVP award. Voting for Andre Dawson from the last place Cubs was the wrong pick because he played for a last place team. The winner needs to come from at least an above .500 team, and the worse the team, the better the performance needs to be to win the award.
The “MVP should/must come from a postseason/winning/contending team” meme demands that value exists only dependent upon its context — i.e., the MVP is based upon how well he performs AND how well his teammates perform. And that really is not in keeping with the spirit or intent.
Further, what about the great player on a dreadnought team that steamrolls the rest of the league (say, Belle on the 1995 Indians)? They’d have won without him, surely — yet he delivered value. There was just no drama to it.
Drama is not value. Value exists regardless its context.
“Value exists regardless of its context.” Not true. A bow and arrow is a valuable weapon against an enemy who only has swords or clubs. It is not valuable against a tank.
In sports context, Peyton Manning does not have as much value if his offensive line is poor, because he cannot utilize his skills as effectively. If a team is going to finish 3-13, does it matter if Peyton Manning is the quarterback or Brodie Croyle?
Similarly, if a player hits 50 solo home runs, that is not as valuable as 50 three run homers. It is all about context. The award is for the most valuable player, not the most outstanding player. The Cy Young, on the other hand, is for the most outstanding pitcher, so, in that case, the team a pitcher plays on does not matter, or at least not very much (i.e. Greinke and Hernandez the last two seasons).
Granderson then Verlander then Pedroia then Bautista then Ellsbury.
The bow & arrow maintains its value — a weapon, which is better than being bare-handed during an engagement — but against a tank, yeah, it’s no longer the most valuable weapon. That doesn’t mean it has no value.
Two fans stand outside Fenway Park. The box office has one ticket left for Game 7, starting in minutes. Price: $100.
The Boston fan has three $20s, a $10, two $5s, and five $1s; eleven bills, $85 in all.
The New York fan (it’s the ALCS) has one $50, one $10, two $5s, and seven $1s; eleven bills, $77 in all.
Q. Who has the most valuable bill?
Hey! The back bay breeze is skittering a loose $20 bill toward our fans.
If the Sox fan grabs it, his new roll of $105 allows him to buy the ticket with $5 left over for commemorative memorabilia after the game.
If the Yanx fan grabs it, he has $97 and still cannot buy the ticket.
Q. Is the loose $20 now the most valuable bill? To either fan? To both fans? If not, which is the most valuable bill?
Now, to me, the Yankees fan’s $50 bill is the most valuable bill, no matter that he cannot buy the ticket. The poor Grant simply suffers from having lesser bills beside him in the wallet; the entire bankroll is failing, but not because of the $50. That Grant is doing his part. And I won’t claim it is not the most valuable bill simply because it doesn’t have enough Jacksons beside, and is stuck with too many Washingtons.
Just a random thought apropos of this blog. I was looking at Stargell’s career, which led to comparisons with other top performers of his era, which led to Mike Schmidt’s 10.4 WAR early in his career, which was almost double that of any other hitter in the NL. I then looked at Schmidt as a whole: he led the NL in OPS+ and hitter’s WAR seven times, but only earned three MVP awards.
The most jobbed slugger in history was clearly Ted Williams, who led the AL in OBP and slugging the same year nine times (each time also winning OPS+, so it wasn’t just Fenway) but only got two MVP awards. Or maybe it was The Babe, who did the feet six times after they reinstated the MVP award, but only garnered one MVP. It’s as if baseball said, “We’d have to give it to this guy every year, so we’ll just stop.” In 1931, it looks like Ruth’s 11.4 WAR was only enough to get him on half the ballots, which put him in 6th for one of the finest years ever. Oh, wait: until 1930, in the AL, previous winners were ineligible, so yes, they did decide not to give it to the Babe every year. That still doesn’t explain his loss in 1931; I guess not all voters got the memo that he was eligible again. DiMaggio got three MVPs with no times leading the league in OBP, only once leading in slugging, but boy, he sure looked good out there. Kind of the opposite of Ruth as a human being, which sure had to count a LOT back then.
But Schmidt can certainly throw his hat in the badly jobbed ring, especially when you consider defense.