Yankee4Life Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Pitchers who won MVP and Cy Young in the same year: 1956 (NL): Don Newcombe, Brooklyn Dodgers (only one Cy Young awarded that year) 1963 (NL): Sandy Koufax, Los Angeles Dodgers 1968 (AL): Denny McLain, Detroit Tigers 1968 (NL): Bob Gibson, St. Louis Cardinals 1971 (AL): Vida Blue, Oakland A's 1981 (AL): Rollie Fingers, Milwaukee Brewers* 1984 (AL): Willie Hernandez, Detroit Tigers* 1986 (AL): Roger Clemens, Boston Red Sox 1992 (AL): Dennis Eckersley, Oakland A's* 2011 (AL): Justin Verlander, Detroit Tigers *=Relief pitcher Look through the names of the people that have done this. There is no way you can not say that any of them did not deserve to win those two awards. I can understand why some may say that a pitcher should not be eligible for the MVP award but the way I see it that award is for the Most Valuable Player and that right there includes pitchers. Would the Tigers have won the division without Verlander? Doubtful. How about the Red Sox in '86 without their ace Roger Clemens? Or what Willie Hernandez did for the Tigers in 1984? MVP's all of them. You can argue that the pitchers have the Cy Young award all to themselves. Well, fine. But you can also say that the hitters have the Triple Crown awards all to themselves (home runs, batting average, RBI) without worrying about sharing it with pitchers. You can get technical about this and say to me that Babe Ruth while still a pitcher lead the A.L. in home runs in 1918 and 1919, but that was Babe Ruth and that was a different time. But in the ninety-two years since 1919, a pitcher has not won these yearly awards and no one's too up in arms about that. Pitchers are players too. If they have a good enough year like any of these guys did on the list above, then they deserve to be considered and to win a Most Valuable Player award. Uploaded with ImageShack.us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennisjames71 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 As in my ShoutBox post...I agree with every point you've made. To me, this happens so infrequentley, that it is a non-issue. When you have a guy like Verlander who had an "above & beyond" season like this...he definitely has to be considered and not taken off the list because he is a pitcher. Best player means best player. If this happened every couple of years; then I would have to reconsider my opinion. But, I am good with the decision overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottybilly Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I concur! At least Jacoby Ellsbury didnt win the AL MVP...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Meh...if they play well enough to earn enough votes, they deserve the award. It's based on votes, so the guy who gets the most votes deserves it. It's not like they gave it to some scrub or some guy who didn't have a good year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordo Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Your logic is still flawed. The Triple Crown is considered a batting or pitching award (though not sure if it is formal or not). To win the Triple Crown in pitching, you must lead in 3 categories (Wins, Strikeouts and ERA). Now, without looking at the link, do you know who won the last batting Triple Crown and what year? You may be surprised. Also, before you look at the link, guess if there are more batting vs. pitching Triple Crown winners and by how much. http://www.baseball-...le_crowns.shtml So you really think that Eckersley deserved both on '92 as a reliever? Really? Above starters, especially Morris, who got his team to the playoffs and WS? Pitchers are players. There is an award for their efforts. It's called the Cy Young Award. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim825 Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 The last batting triple crown winner was Carl Yastrzemski of the Red Sox in 1967. Plenty of guys have led the league in home runs and RBI's or batting average and RBI's in the same season. It's that third category that is hard to get. I don't mean to take anything away from the pitching crown, but I think its three categories are more closely tied together. If a pitcher strikes out a lot of batters, it can lead to a lower ERA which can lead to more wins (at least for a starting pitcher). The three categories of the batting triple crown aren't as closely related. If a batter hits a lot of home runs, he will tend to have a higher number of RBI's, but it doesn't necessarily mean that he will have a high batting average. A categorical grouping more comparable to the pitching triple crown would be something like Home runs, RBI's and Slugging Percentage or Batting Average, RBI's and On Base Percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 There's a flaw in everyone's logic including your own, so that's just a moot point. Eckersley got the most votes did he not? Therefore yes he deserved it. No one said this award was given to the best hitter, no one said it was given to the best player, and no one said a pitcher couldn't win it. They simply named it the most valuable player and let a bunch of guys individually cast votes on what they believe it means. The guys who win it are the guys who get the most votes and that has been the only criteria, so therefore they deserve it. There's no law saying they have to vote one way or another, otherwise there wouldn't be a vote. But the fact of the matter is it's based on votes, so subjectivity will always be a factor. All it boils down to is whether or not the guys played well enough to even be considered. By having a good season, they're not entitled to squat except a chance--and a chance is what they all get. This isn't a reward for earning certain stats. The triple crown may be called an award, but it's more of an achievement since you automatically get the crown for leading the league in those three categories. The mvp is simply an award that people vote on and is not an achievement. Whether we agree with how they decide to vote or not is irrelevant. And yes, without looking I'm well aware of who last won the triple crown. It goes to show how difficult it is to do. But newsflash, no one did it this year. None. Before McGwire did, do you remember how long it was since someone hit 60 homeruns? I don't recall him automatically given the mvp. That doesn't mean Sosa was any less deserving. Those great achievements just earn them the consideration, not the award itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 The last batting triple crown winner was Carl Yastrzemski of the Red Sox in 1967. Plenty of guys have led the league in home runs and RBI's or batting average and RBI's in the same season. It's that third category that is hard to get. I don't mean to take anything away from the pitching crown, but I think its three categories are more closely tied together. If a pitcher strikes out a lot of batters, it can lead to a lower ERA which can lead to more wins (at least for a starting pitcher). The three categories of the batting triple crown aren't as closely related. If a batter hits a lot of home runs, he will tend to have a higher number of RBI's, but it doesn't necessarily mean that he will have a high batting average. A categorical grouping more comparable to the pitching triple crown would be something like Home runs, RBI's and Slugging Percentage or Batting Average, RBI's and On Base Percentage. I would personally throw in steals to that for a true triple crown. You can hit a ton of homeruns and have an average BA, so to have both high are stellar. To do so and lead the league in steals, would be stellar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordo Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I said the logic was flawed because the statement of defense came in the form of the triple crown being "all to the batters". I'm not talking batting only as a consideration. A nominee's glove should enter the picture as well. A Cy Young winner is not necessarily stats driven either. Since it is a formal award and solely available to pitchers, then what other option is there for a fielder to win? And McGwire & Sosa entering into the argument with the blemished record that that is, is not even conceivable. The steals consideration is formidable, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DylanBradbury Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 There are actual rules for voting though and they haven't changed since the Baseball Writers Association of America's Most Valuable Player began voting for it in 1931. When a voter is casting a vote they receive this letter with the rules: Dear Voter: There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier. The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931: 1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense. 2. Number of games played. 3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort. 4. Former winners are eligible. 5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team. You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from one to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, and that includes pitchers and designated hitters. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration. Even though it does say that "...all players are eligible for MVP, and that includes pitchers and designated hitters," for me, rules one and two disqualify Verlander or any other pitcher or DH for the following reasons: (1) He provided a lot of defence (i.e., strikeouts) for his team, which stopped runs from happening. However, he didn't contribute to his team's offensive output. (2) He didn't play every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 These so called rules do nothing more than validate what I'm saying, which is it doesn't matter what you or I think. The only opinions that matter are those of the voters. The very fact that it states that it is up to each individual voter can't make it any more clear that these are not rules, as they are just guidelines. If they were in fact rules, there would be repercussions for violating them, and it would be very specific in stating who qualifies and how they qualify. But it doesn't. It just merely says numbers of games played. You may interpret that as meaning that since a pitcher doesn't play everyday, he doesn't qualify. And there are voters that agree with you. But there are also people who could just as easily and rationally disagree with you because they interpret it differently since the pitcher still plays in as many games that is expected for him to be able to. This doesn't make their rationale any more or less valid. It's left for interpretation, otherwise it wouldn't be voted on and the award wouldn't have as much meaning. The "rules" also state in the very same sentence that all players include pitchers and designated hitters. If you want to speak from a logical point of view, this is an invalid statement if you disqualify guys because of the positions they play. The so called rules would be completely contradictory to each, which invalidates them. But again, this isn't about logic, it's about votes. At the end of the day, they are still selecting among the top performers in the league, and the award does nothing more than recognize one of the top performers. Arguing over who "deserves" is pointless. If anything has been clear, your performance doesn't just entitle you to winning as the guidelines make it clear that it's not just about the numbers. It's pretty well established that your stats will will qualify you for consideration--and that's it. The guy who wins it should be celebrated, not criticized because someone got "robbed" as if it means any of their performances are more or less better than someone else. The stats are just one major part of who gets chosen, and it's not the only thing to consider. McGwire and Sosa's records may be tarnished, but that's by today's standards. If you don't recall what the general opinions were like back then, all you have to do is look at the voting to see they placed 1 and 2. Their example has nothing to do with whether or not their records are valid. Their example only illustrates that the votes always come down to hard choices, and it's not always the guy with the best stats, because they each almost always have stats that are better than the other person, and vice versa. That' why they don't just pin the guy with the best stats. We're grasping at straws arguing over who deserves it when we have a system that decides who deserves it based on the votes he gets. So yes, the guy who wins it by definition is the most deserving. The guys who get considered are still the best of the league, so there's no reason to cry about it. So by the way, congratulations to the winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee4Life Posted November 23, 2011 Author Share Posted November 23, 2011 We're grasping at straws arguing over who deserves it when we have a system that decides who deserves it based on the votes he gets. So yes, the guy who wins it by definition is the most deserving. The guys who get considered are still the best of the league, so there's no reason to cry about it. So by the way, congratulations to the winner. I agree Homer. Verlander had a dominating year. He carried the Tigers. And here's another thing you got to keep in mind when a pitcher wins the MVP. They have to be on their game for the entire year. They can't go into a slump like an every day player can and still win it. For example if Verlander had six or seven bad or sub par starts in a row it would have hurt him in the voting. He started out slow when the season started and then when he got hot he stayed that way for the rest of the year without interruption. That's how a pitcher wins these things. By not getting into a slump. The only time Verlander lost two games in a row was in April. After that he took off and he did not stop until Detroit was eliminated by Texas. But people will still feel like he didn't deserve it. Oh well. Like you said, congratulations to the winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordo Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Dylan brings the most viable evidence I believe. Homer, you sort of had me until, "there's no reason to cry about it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee4Life Posted November 23, 2011 Author Share Posted November 23, 2011 Dylan brings the most viable evidence I believe. Homer, you sort of had me until, "there's no reason to cry about it". What evidence did he bring? All he did was cut and paste the rules that the voter should go by to vote for the MVP. And even in there it says "There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means." I can cut and paste stuff from here until next Tuesday but it won't mean anything. Not trying to start anything here because all this really is is a matter of opinion and no one is really right or wrong. This has been talked about for years and it will be talked about again next year on TV and everywhere else. To me, it's a non-issue. Verlander won. And even the ones who don't agree that he should be MVP will agree that he had a fantastic year and he was the main reason for Detroit winning the Central and making it to the ALCS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 That's the thing about it all, is that there's nothing to be had or to be convinced about. The blunt truth about it is there really is no reason to cry about it because it changes nothing. If Chone Figgins had been the winner, then there's something to cry about. But the fact of the matter is the guy who won had a damn good season, and that can be agreed upon by everyone that this must be one of the qualifications. The mvp isn't a reward based on accomplishing something such as having the best stats. It's an award based on votes, and each person who votes has multiple ways to interpret how they measure their vote. How they rationalize their vote is their privilege to do so, which is stated right within the very same rules you want to quote from. The beauty in it is that you don't have to agree with the voters, but the voters don't have to agree with you. It just doesn't matter since it's determined by the majority of votes. It's the majority of the votes that determines who deserves the award, not the opinions of the individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jogar84 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 it should be banned from ever happening again...dont punish the position players for having a less than stellar year by giving away "their" award to a pitcher, just give it to the best available hitter. It needs to be clarified that the MVP award should only be for those who play 162 games, not 30 or so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee4Life Posted December 8, 2011 Author Share Posted December 8, 2011 it should be banned from ever happening again...dont punish the position players for having a less than stellar year by giving away "their" award to a pitcher, just give it to the best available hitter. It needs to be clarified that the MVP award should only be for those who play 162 games, not 30 or so The wonderful thing about us all expressing our opinions is that we all can say and stand behind what we think. Even though I don't agree with jogar on this issue I can understand what he is saying and why. At the same time I still am not upset that Verlander won. Have a good holiday jogar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottybilly Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 So does it count when Pujols becomes a permanent DH in 2 years and wins an MVP award? Technically a DH is only half a player, if a pitcher is only 1/5 of a player. :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordo Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Well, if you're going to win as a DH, you better sure as hell have the stats and substantial and/or GW hits to prove that you made the difference for you team during the regular season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.