MVP or not? That is the question I'm addressing today. First of all, let me say this. He is a deserving candidate, and if I had a vote, it would go to him (as long as he doesn't blow up in the final month), but I don't think he will win it. Why? Well here are a few reasons:
1) He plays in Detroit, not New York or Boston, and there are some Yankees and Red Sox having great years. It's unfortunate, but that means that ALL of the east coast writers are voting for Granderson (NYY), Gonzalez (BOS), or Ellsbury (BOS), before they even think about casting a vote for Verlander. Is it right? I don't believe so. Here's why... Thanks to my good friend Ryan Mosher for pointing these facts out: Verlander is 14-0 when pitching after a Tigers loss this season. That alone is eye-popping. He also has a WAR (wins above replacement) of 6.4 according to fangraphs.com, and of 7.7 according to baseball-reference.com. Granderson is at 6.8 on fangraphs and 5.3 on baseball-reference. Gonzalez is 6.1 on fangraphs and 6.4 on baseball-reference. Ellsbury is an 8.2 on fangraphs and a 6.8 on baseball-reference. So of the other "candidates," only two have a higher WAR according to fangraphs.com. This isn't even counting defensive WAR though, because Granderson could be replaced by literally anyone in the minor leagues. Anyways, moving on!
2) His numbers are comparable to Cy Young winners from the past. For example, in 2008, Cliff Lee went 22-3 for the Cleveland Indians. He led the league in wins, ERA (2.54), shut outs (2), home runs per 9 innings (.5), walks per 9 innings (1.4), and WAR (7.3). Lee finished 2nd in complete games (4), ninth in strikeouts (170), and averaged 7 1/3 innings pitched per start. The Indians finished that year 81-81, so without Lee they would have been 59-78, 19 games under .500.
Verlander's numbers are similar with a few starts left to go. He's 22-5 and leading the league in ERA (2.44), strikeouts (232), and WAR (7.7). That's the triple crown for pitchers. Even though it's more common than the batting triple crown, it's still only been done 25 times in baseball history. He's tied for 4th in shutouts (2), tied for second in complete games (4), and is 7th in walks per 9 innings (2.0). He doesn't crack the top 10 in home runs allowed per 9 innings, but also averaged 7 1/3 innings pitched per start. The Tigers record without Verlander, as of right now, would be 59-57, two games above .500.
For the record, Lee won the AL Cy Young award in a landslide, but finished 12th in the MVP voting.
3) The writers' assumption that since a pitcher doesn't play every day, they can't be the most valuable player. I hate it, but that's the argument, and they're the ones who vote. For another look at an even better comparison, here's an article by Tom Robinson of The Virginia Pilot that points out if Steve Carlton didn't win the MVP in 1972, no pitcher should. If you don't have time to read the article, his numbers dwarf Verlander's (it was a different sort of baseball back then), and he ended up finishing fifth in the MVP voting. The specifics are mind-boggling.
4) The Tigers have other pitchers. As Robinson's article points out, the most any other Philly pitcher won in 1972 was four. FOUR! Detroit has Max Sherzer and Rick Porcello that have 15 and 14 wins respectively, and who knows how good Doug Fister's record would be if he wasn't playing in Seattle for the first half of the year (he's 4-1 as a Tiger, matching all 1972 Phillies not named Carlton).
Finally, this is just a tidbit about one of the stats sometimes used to judge a pitcher: the "if the Tigers didn't have Verlander they'd be a .500 team" argument. This isn't a factor that screams MVP. Sure, if you take Cliff Lee away from the 2011 Phillies they're still 35 games above .500, and if C.C. Sabathia isn't in New York they go from 33 games over .500 to 21 over. But look at some of the very legitimate 2011 NL Cy Young award candidates. Ian Kennedy is 19-4. With him the DiamondBacks are the feel-good story of the season with an 83-61 (21 games over .500) record. Without him, their record would be 64-57 (just 7 games over .500) and they'd be looking up at the San Francisco Giants. Perhaps an even better instance is Clayton Kershaw, who at 17-5 is leading the Dodgers through a horrific season. They are 70-72 overall (2 games under .500) and without him they would be 53-67 (14 games under .500). I don't think it's as useful of an argument as others do.
I love the season that Justin Verlander is having (even though he's killing my Tribe). It's so much fun to watch pitching dominate a league that was not so long ago ruled by the long ball. It excites me that we are looking at a starting pitcher and considering him for the MVP, but I can't make myself believe he'll win it.
And that, my friends, is the interesting case of Justin Verlander.
No comments:
Post a Comment