AL and NL MVPs

If it were a tweaked knee or broken wrist -- something that happens naturally all the time -- then yes.

But he was hunted in this case. If he wasn't beaned, on purpose, he doesn't miss time. And I get that no one has equated the beanball to the tweaked back but let's no delude ourselves into thinking that it wasn't part in parcel. Until that point Cutch was having another MVP-like season.

 

None of that matters.

When he's sitting on the bench, he's not providing value to his team, no matter the reason. So he's less valuable than someone who performs equally over a larger number of games. It's not, "Most Valuable Player in the Games He Actually Played." It's Most Valuable Player over the course of 162 games.

 

When he's sitting on the bench because someone hurt him on purpose, and then his replacement doesn't perform anywhere near to where he was performing, you start to see MVP value. Pirates hit the skids right about the same time, didn't they? Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

 

Of course he's valuable when he's playing. No one doubts that, and it didn't take a DL stint to reveal it.

But he'll be less valuable over the course of the 2014 season than someone who played more games.

 

The injury-proving-value argument is pretty much the worst.

 

And yet you have the new era of seamheads who make WAR and VORP a very real part of their voting process.

Those guys are, like, the worst.

 

You're making a WAR argument right now. You're just not calling it that.

 

Isn't that WAR?

 

No, I'm pointing out why I'd keep Cutch in the conversation.

I don't go 14-variable-deep trying to decide who's the MVP -- certainly not WAR or VORP.

My top 2 are Kershaw and Lucroy, and I'd go with Lucroy, who's having his career year at the toughest position. If he goes slumping in the final month, it's a no-brainer at that point.

 

Why not?

The more information, the better.

 

Kershaw has not gone less than seven innings since June 8. In that stretch of 14 starts, he has allowed zero or one runs 11 times. The other three starts he has allowed three runs.

I don't think it's a very close call right now and I think he widens the gap every time he pitches.

 

Xan: Respectfully, I don't understand why Kershaw facing 900+ batters needs a qualifier that some of those hitters are shitty, but having 700-odd plate appearances doesn't need a similar qualifier that many of those same pitchers are shitty. How many No. 4-5 starters does a hitter face each season? It's probably close to 35 percent (assuming you factor in No. 5 starters getting skipped with off days). That doesn't even include middle relief, but let's say (being super conservative) that 10 percent of a players at bats come against guys neither good enough to be starters or closers. Isn't all this the equivalent of facing pitchers and No. 8 hitters, especially when Kershaw has 200-plus more "outs" where can affect the game? It's not like Kershaw pitches in blowouts very often where the game is in hand, meaning he is almost always pitching where the game is still in doubt to some degree. What hitter has 90 percent of his at bats where the win probability is essentially even? None. I have no idea what the accurate number would be but let's say it's 50 percent of at bats come where win probability is even or within a 20 degree swing either way. (That may be way off.) That still suggests Kershaw is erasing far more outs in high leverage situations than any hitter is doing something with his outs in high leverage situations. Right?