No, I have no idea what this means or if it pertains to this year.Lance Berkman (HOU) --> 6.53
Cliff Lee (CLE) --> 6.12
The top two players in the AL are Lee and Roy Halladay until you get to Joe Mauer. In the NL, Pujols, Holliday, and Carlos Lee are ahead of Tim Lincecum.
For those of who say that a pitcher can't win the MVP, I agree but probably for different reasons. I think the Cy Young is for the pitchers and the MVP is for the hitters. If a pitcher wins the MVP, then who is the MVP(osition player)? Maybe it doesn't matter because the whole thing is so subjective, but it seems fair to give one position player and one pitcher from each league the ultimate award. As for the MVP, I think the playoffs (like in the Cy Young voting) should be ignored. The playoffs don't show how important you are to the team. Look at Chipper Jones and how bad the Braves are without him (I'm not saying Chipper deserves the award). Guys like Berkman and Pujols deserve to be up there even though their teams didn't make it. The playoffs don't make them any less valuable. If they had a great year, they had a great year, and the playoffs, something over which they have almost no control considering they usually add a measly 3-6 wins, should have no bearing.
However, I do think pitchers are as valuable as an everyday player. Okay, relief pitchers are not, but I think we all knew I was talking about real pitchers (just kidding, I like some relievers, but seriously, 60 IP?). Let's take a look. I measured pitchers by batters faced per game, and I measured position players by total chances per start (coming in at the end skews it a little). For position players, I also gave them 3.1 at bats because that's what they need for the batting title. For catchers, they are involved in every hitter four out of those five games (to be conservative), so they are more valuable than a pitcher considering they also hit. For first basemen, I didn't count them up because their total chances are skewed by put-outs, and assists don't count pop-ups or line drives caught. Yet, their chances are mainly easy throws, so a pitcher is worth more as they are involved in more plays (I'll get to pitchers in a moment). As for second baseman, they make 5 plays a game (I average the top 5 -- it isn't perfect but name a stat that is), and adding their 3.1 at-bats, they get 40.5 plays in 5 games (the amount of time the pitcher makes a start and has his four days off). Third basemen make 2.53 plays a game, so adding 3.1, they have 28.15 plays. For shortstops, they make 4.42 plays per game (37.6 total). For left fielders, they make 1.76 plays per game (24.3 total). For center fielders, they make 2.66 per game (28.8 total). For right fielders, they make 2.17 plays a game (26.35 total). When I averaged pitchers, they faced 28.12 a game. Therefore, catchers, second basemen, and shortstops can be more valuable, and third basemen and center fielders are equal. However, when one considers that each pitch is like a play, the pitcher is much more valuable than any player because of the number of plays he is involved in. Each pitch is a play because each can result in a hit or an out, just like a defensive play or at-bat (pitches per at-bat wouldn't get near enough to make a difference). Therefore, the pitcher quantitatively is worth more than any other player, and I didn't even count their plays in the field. The pitcher has control over that many plays, and by succeeding, he becomes valuable, just as a position player who succeeds becomes valuable. Therefore, pitchers should be paid just as much as hitters, but their injuries seem more likely which makes them seem less worthy.
Still, they should have two separate awards for the pitchers and position players, and the Cy Young can count for pitchers while the MVP counts for position players.
Did that make sense to anyone else?
2 comments:
It did make sense, but I think you're missing one thing, in my opinion.
Someway of determining who their numbers contribute to their team winning.
As an example, Andre Dawson is still one of my favorite players, but no way did he deserve the MVP in '87. Not for a last place team.
Not unless they were as bad as the '62 Mets without him, and he was able to singlehandedly raise them in 60-win territory.
I still the MVP should be the guy who best did something to make his team competitive, regardless of eventaual outcome, and not solely because of statistics.
Guys like are Pujols are a good example.
But are they the Most "Valuable" Player? To me, "valuable" means important to the team, not necessarily the best team. I think you remove a lot of good players from the discussion by doing so. However, the Hall of Fame is there to decide if you were just a really good player, so maybe that should be enough. Hmm ...
Post a Comment