Justin Verlander 2011 AL MVP: Do Pitchers Really Deserve To Win the MVP Award?

It was bound to happen eventually. A pitcher has won the American League MVP award. Justin Verlander took home the hardware, the first victory for a pitcher since 1992 when closer Dennis Eckersley won and the first MVP award for a starter since 1986 when Roger Clemens won the award as a member of the Boston Red Sox. 

Also bound to happen are the ensuing debates about whether or not a pitcher should win the award. This absurd debate, which has been going on seemingly forever, exists only in those who have decided that it's not possible for a pitcher to be a most valuable player. 

Never mind that there's no rule in place stating that they can't be. 

Stats will come and go, new ones, old ones, at the end of the day great pitching isn't just very tough to do over the course of an entire season it's clearly more valuable. Here are some reasons not just why Justin Verlander deserved the MVP award but also why pitchers should never be discounted from this award. 

The Pitchers Already Have an Award: The Cy Young

Here's an irrational argument steeped in basically nothing but a playground-like mentality of "fairness." It goes like this:

"The pitchers already have their award, the Cy Young, therefore a pitcher shouldn't be able to win both awards."

Yes the pitchers do have their award, "The Cy Young." The Cy Young award is awarded annually to the best pitcher in each league. That's the basic definition of the award. 

The MVP award is awarded annually to the most valuable player—not hitter—most valuable player in each league. 

This argument is rooted in the foundation that because a pitcher can win the Cy Young he shoudn't be able to win both awards. Does that mean that the Comeback Player of The Year Award shouldn't be eligible for either the MVP or Cy Young? I mean he's already got an award, right? It wouldn't be fair for him to have two. 

If you think the hitters should have their own award like the pitchers do that's not a bad idea. As of now they don't and they don't get to own the rights to the MVP award because of that. 

What About the Value of the "Five Tools"?

Steeped in more irrational silliness is the idea that because a cliche exists regarding the value of "the five-tool player." Pitchers should thus be ineligible for the MVP award. 

The five tools are hitting, hitting for power, base running, fielding and throwing ability. Of course pitching only covers the throwing ability one. Then again, that expression was never designed for pitchers. If it would make those that are opposed to the pitcher winning the MVP award feel better here are five tools just for pitchers. 

1. Control

2. Durability 

3. Power

4. Consistency 

5. Mental Toughness

Feel better now? Good—so do I. Oh and since Verlander is now officially a "five-tool" player can we just allow him to enjoy the award?

Hitters Play Every Day, Pitchers Only Pitch Every 5 Days

Yes it's true hitters play nearly every day while starting pitchers only pitch every five days (six when Joe Girardi is feeling super concerned). 

Of course that doesn't make them less valuable. 

Here are a few key points to ponder when evaluating this logic behind denying a pitcher the MVP award. 

1. When you have tickets to a baseball game what's the first question that pops into your head? If you're a Yankee fan this past season did you think "I have tickets to the game next Tuesday, I hope Granderson is playing" or was it more along the lines of "I have tickets to the game next Tuesday, I really hope C.C. is pitching"?

Most fans would be more concerned with who was pitching. That's probably because most fans want to attend a game and see their team win. The Tigers were 29-5 in games in which Verlander started this season, that's an .852 winning percentage. Find me the individual hitter that can get his team to a 138-24 record (an .851 winning percentage) and I'll concede this point gladly. 

That would never happen—not only would it never happen but in the unlikely event that it did happen I'd be willing to bet it would be quite hard to give credit to an individual hitter. That's not to say that Verlander got the 29-5 record without some help, but he was a big part of it. Bigger than a hitter would be. 

2. Offensive stats are more easily padded without meaning. Look at Curtis Granderson for a moment. Granderson led the league in both runs scored and runs batted in. He also finished fourth in the voting. Granderson had a fantastic season. On August 25th, 2011 he played in a game against the Oakland A's. The final score was Yankees 22, A's nine. Big win for the Yanks. Granderson came up with the score 17-8 in the eighth inning and hit a grand slam home run for the Yankees. Granderson would finish the game with five runs batted in. He won the RBI crown with 119, his teammate Robinson Cano had 118 and Red Sox first baseman Adrian Gonzalez had 117. Obviously any of these men could have won the crown but Granderson took it, and when you realize how minimal the value of those four runs batted in were in that game on August 25th you understand why offensive stats don't always carry the same weight as pitching ones do.

Did some of Verlander's strikeouts come late in games with games out of reach? In all likelihood, yes. But in order for any team to comeback they need men on base, and the best way to keep men off the bases is to strike guys out.   

Would You Trade One for the Other ?

The award is "most valuable," right? Value of course is a product of demand. If one player is more valuable than another then clearly a trade would favor the team parting with the less valuable player in the deal. 

As soon as I see any sort of compelling evidence that the Tigers would entertain trading Justin Verlander for Jacoby Ellsbury, Jose Bautista or Curtis Granderson then perhaps I'll relent and concede that one of those players has a legitimate claim to the 2011 AL MVP award. 

Perhaps an argument could be made that good, dominant pitchers are much more difficult to find than hitters. Of course that would also imply that the pitchers are more valuable. Tougher to find, tougher to keep, tougher to evaluate as well. 

The Red Sox, Blue Jays and Yankees would all make a one-for-one swap of any of their MVP candidates for Verlander in a heartbeat. The reason it's not happening is because Detroit would laugh out loud at the proposal. They know value when they see it. 

The Other Flaw in the "Cy Young Is for Pitchers" Argument.

Best and valuable are very different things. The best hitter doesn't always win the MVP award even when the award is given to an offensive player. 

In 2002 Manny Ramirez led the American League in batting average and (.349) on-base percentage (.450). Alex Rodriguez led the American League in total bases (389), home runs (57) and runs batted in (142). Finally Jim Thome led the American League in slugging percentage (.677), ops (1.122) and walks (122).

So who won MVP? Miguel Tejada, that's who. Tejada led the league in all of zero major statistical categories. In fact, he lagged far behind in many of them. That's because Miguel Tejada was far from the "best" player that year. He was most valuable, though. 

The Rangers, Red Sox and Indians appeared in a grand total of zero postseason games that year. Meanwhile the Oakland A's made the playoffs and won their division with 103 wins. A close look at this season's MVP voting shows that the guys who finished second and third, Jacoby Ellsbury and Jose Bautista, both played for teams that missed the playoffs.

Curtis Granderson of the Yankees finished fourth and the Yankees made the playoffs, but Granderson also only hit .262 this season. He had some glaring offensive strengths and some weaknesses as well. Verlander's Tigers won their division and made the playoffs. Winning counts in the MVP voting—it's got value.  

Did Anyone Watch the Playoffs?

Before any of the anti-pitcher winning the MVP award people jump all over me, I am totally aware that the postseason is not factored into the voting for the MVP award. It never has been and it never will be. We have postseason awards for that reason. 

I can still use the postseason metaphorically, though. 

If you watched this year's baseball postseason you saw some amazing games, you saw some amazing performances by both hitters and pitchers. 

You also saw how important a great starting pitcher can be. 

If Chris Carpenter doesn't pitch like the "ace" he's supposed to be in Game 7, then the Rangers might have been champs. 

In fact, it's fairly rare that a team makes the World Series, gets dominant performances from their best starting pitcher and still loses the World Series. Think about Chris Carpenter this year, the Diamondbacks in 2001, the Marlins in 2003 and the Yankees in 2000. 

Or contrast that to teams that ride great pitchers to the World Series and then don't get the great outings they expect in the World Series. The Rangers in 2010 and 2011. The Tigers in 2006. The Astros in 2005. When great pitchers are great they're very tough to ignore, even if they only perform every few days. 

The Award Is Tougher for Pitchers To Win and That's Okay.

Maybe people haven't noticed but it's not as if pitchers are always stealing the MVP award from deserving hitters. In fact, no starting pitcher has won an AL MVP since 1986 when Roger Clemens won the award. No starting pitcher has won an MVP award in the National League—actually no pitcher period has won an MVP award in the National League since Bob Gibson in 1968. 

Basically when a pitcher wins the award it's usually because they're not just better than the field—they're a lot better than the rest of the field. 

That's what Verlander was this season. Not only was he easily the best pitcher in the league, but when one considers that the other top two finishers played on teams that either had an epic late-season collapse (Boston) or were the definition of mediocrity (81-81 Toronto Blue Jays) Verlander and his division title-holding Tigers look pretty good at 95-67.

There were three very good offensive players on the playoff teams. There was Curtis Granderson who finished fourth in the voting, Miguel Cabrera of Detroit who finished fifth and Robinson Cano who finished sixth.

When the best offensive players are not on great teams and the best pitcher is then that will sometimes push the voting over the edge. Don't sweat Verlander's MVP award. There's ample evidence to suggest that a pitcher won't be winning the MVP award anytime soon.  

The Biggest MVP Travesty of the Last 20 Years Involved a Pitcher NOT Winning

Of all the MVP award travesties of the last 20 years hitters have nothing on pitchers. Specifically one pitcher. That would be Pedro Martinez, and that's because in 1999 Pedro Martinez should have won the American League MVP by a near unanimous vote and instead lost to a player who may or may not have been the best player on his own team.

In 1999 Pedro Martinez closed out the 20th century with arguably it's finest single-season performance ever. The numbers are jaw dropping and that's before you consider that the season took place right smack dab in the midst of the era of performance-enhancing drugs. 

At the time the voters may or may not have been aware of just how rampant performance-enhancing drug use was in Major League Baseball, but the voters had to notice that offense sure was kind of easy to find while great starting pitching could only be found in one place, Boston—and only in the form of one man. Pedro Martinez. 

Pedro was 23-4 with an earned run average of 2.07 and 313 strikeouts. He won the triple crown of pitching. It wasn't close. It wasn't close by anyone's definition of close. Pedro's 23 wins were five ahead of the three pitchers who had 18. His earned run average of 2.07 was over a full run better than the second place David Cone who had an earned run average of 3.44. His 313 strikeouts were 113 strikeouts better than second place Chuck Finley with 200. Want more? His whip ratio was 0.923, second place was Eric Milton with 1.226. In every stat Pedro won going away. So who won MVP? 

Ivan Rodriguez, that's who. The catcher for the Texas Rangers had an amazing season. A .332 batting average, 35 home runs, 113 runs batted in, 25 stolen bases and an ops of .914. Great year. Great until one notices that Juan Gonzalez hit .326 with 39 home runs and 128 runs batted in. His ops was .980. Then there was Rafael Palmeiro who hit .324 with 47 home runs, 148 runs batted in and an ops of 1.050. 

Both teams made the playoffs, so how did that vote happen? It makes no sense to this day, and in fact, makes even less sense with the emergence of the performance-enhancing drug scandal. 

Was Pudge juicing? It's hard to tell for sure but the numbers produced by Ivan Rodriguez in that season were fairly pedestrian for the era in which they were achieved. 

In addition, Pedro had a transcendent individual performance that year when he went into Yankee Stadium and was dominant. He allowed one hit, a solo home run to Chili Davis, and that was the only hit the Yankees would get as Pedro fanned a Yankee Stadium visiting pitcher record 17 batters in a complete-game victory. 

I can say with certainty that no hitter this year was robbed on the level that Pedro was in 1999. 

Hitters Actually DO Have Their Own Award

The argument that somehow surmises that because the pitchers have the Cy Young Award hitters should then automatically own the exclusive rights to the MVP award is so completely flawed that it boggles the mind. 

Especially when one considers that hitters do have their own award. It's called " The Hank Aaron Award". Here's some info on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Aaron_Award 

See the hitters get an award for hitting, the pitchers get an award for pitching and then one individual player gets an award for being the most valuable. It's really not an unfair system- well unless someone arbitrarily decides to not include pitchers in the equation. That would be unfair and silly.