MLB Writers Who Won't Vote a Pitcher for MVP Shouldn't Be Voting at All

A pitcher has the right to an MVP award. It Seems logical enough. After all, pitchers have won them in the past, the most recent being Dennis Eckersley of the Oakland A's in 1992. Since then no pitcher has won the award and, with the exception of Pedro Martinez in 1999, no pitcher has truly deserved it either. 

That very well may change this season. Detroit Tigers' ace Justin Verlander, owner of a 21-5 record as of September 3rd, could be on his way to taking home the hardware.

Among the more complex issues in determining an award such as the MVP is the rules surrounding the voting process. These rules, which were drafted in 1931, are neither lengthy nor specific:

(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; and (5) members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.”- BBWAA (Baseball Writer's Association of America) rules. 

All in all, the rules are pretty vague. There's certainly no way one could conclude the award should not be given to a pitcher. However, every season a pitcher becomes involved in the debate, fans are treated to a stream of reasons why pitchers shouldn't win the award. 

There's the "they have their own award" argument, which is a decent point. The Cy Young award is handed out to the league's best pitcher annually. "Best" and "Most Valuable" are two different designations though. That holds true on offense as well where players with simply outstanding offensive numbers have not won the MVP award in large part because the team they played on was not headed toward the postseason. The fact that pitchers can win the Cy Young in no way deems them ineligible for the MVP award.

The fact that they're not everyday players is another invalid point. While it's true that pitchers don't play everyday (a great starter may amass as many 40 starts and a closer might make up to 60 appearances), what about the "value" of those appearances?

All fans love the walk-off, but a great closer may end as many as 50 games in a single season. A good closer negates those walk-offs that fans enjoy so much. From 1981 to 1992, when the closer was know as a "fireman", the position was even tougher. Rather than coming in for just one inning the pitcher would come in with runners on base and the game in the balance. Perhaps that's why from 1981-1992 three closers, Rollie Fingers, Willie Hernandez, and Dennis Eckersley, all won the AL MVP award.

Starters appear even less, but no other player in baseball has a greater impact on a game than the starting pitcher. A dominant starting pitcher can make offensive performance almost unnecessary. By contrast, a bad starter may squander a start regardless of how good his offensive support is. How valuable was the 7-1 lead given to Tim Hudson of the Oakland A's a little more than a week ago? Not very—his inability to be effective after the third inning led to an eventual 22-9 Yankee win. Included in that win was a grand slam home run by current MVP candidate Curtis Granderson. The blast made the score 21-9. Was there any "value" in that home run? Not really.

Those are the two reasons that seem to be uttered the most in defense of not voting for a pitcher for the MVP award. Neither one however addresses a pitcher's value—or a lack of. 

If the BBWAA has active members who, on the record, claim to not include pitchers in consideration for the MVP award, those members should be urged by current BBWAA president Ken Davidoff to reconsider. Awards are there for a reason. The MVP is supposed to honor the "most valuable player" not the "most valuable everyday position player."