AL and NL MVPs

Quit calling people honey. It's creepy.

 

Don't get your knickers in a knot, Ryan. If you don't like it, put me on blast. If not, deal with it.

To answer Versatile's question, I'd vote for Lucroy (right now).

I've gone back and forth on the legitimacy of pitchers winning MVP, and I just don't know if a once-in-5-days guy beats the everyday guy, especially when the everyday guy is a catcher having his career season -- and even if you think you can produce numbers suggesting that the pitcher's career year is better.

Is Kershaw having a better year than Lucroy? How do you quantify that?

 

Here's a good article on the subject: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/mvp-cy-young-clayton-kershaw-felix-hernandez/

 

Kershaw has pitched in 15 games (so far) that because of him, his team had almost no chance of losing. I very much doubt you can trace Lucroy's impact to that high a degree.

I've been keeping an eye on this one for a while now -- if you remove one Kershaw start (May 19 at Ari, 1 2/3 innings, 7 runs), his ERA is 1.42.

 

That was somewhat good, but spot-on IMO when it got to Lucroy and the intangibles, which is what I said on the last page i.e. the work he does with and for pitchers -- on top of his offense.

Anyway, I have no argument against Kershaw or King Felix. They have been historically beautiful this season. I guess I align closer to Mulder's side of the issue than I do to those who say pitchers should carry equal weight when it comes to the MVP vote.

 

Not sure I liked this part:

How many of those 956 batters are shit? Let's just take the "You fail 7 out of 10 times in baseball" theory.

How many of those 956 batters are .300 hitters and what kind of MVP pitching stats are we looking at?

 

The rule of thumb the voters have always applied since the invention of the Cy Young in 1956 is that to contend for or win an MVP they had to be historically dominant for a winning team (that last disqualified Steve Carlton in 1972). Kershaw qualifies on both counts, and he'll get first place votes. Enough to win? Maybe, because of the many excellent but none dominant seasons of position player candidates.
Old Tony should be and doubtless is well aware of the traditional preference MVP voters have had for catchers.

 

The point is that the argument that pitchers only contribute every five days, making them less valuable than "everyday" players, is shit. Clayton Kershaw and Felix Hernandez see as much, if not more, action than Lucroy, McCutcheon, Gomez, Rizzo. You name him.

Their action is just more concentrated.

 

Well, that's a dumb fucking rule of thumb.

 

Maybe so, Dick, but it's what has happened ever since Don Newcombe turned the MVP-Cy Young double in the Cy's initial 1956 season.

 

Yeah, but ... who cares?

 

I've always cringe when I hear noise about pitchers not being as worthy as position players for the MVP.

If Detroit turns it around and makes a late-season run, does anyone really think that Price will not be the main reason why, even more than Cabrera? How often have we seen a pitcher be a slump-stopper, turn things around when it comes to his turn in the rotation?

I think I like that 956-726 stat, too. Wainwright was simply in the mouth of the lion more often than Votto.