Article by LZ Granderson on ESPN.com argues Verlander should get the Cy Young and MVP. Isn't this a bit of a stretch to give a pitcher the MVP also? I do agree with him though that there's no way the Tigers have the record they do without ...
OT: LZ Granderson: Verlander Cy Young and MVP?
The only reason the tigers are in contention is because of him. By definition that proves his value
It is a bit of a stretch to give Verlander both, but if he ends up with 23-24 wins, continues his dominance statistically, and the Tigers win the division, it will be hard to deny him.
I think a guy with the same last name as the writer may have something to say about the MVP discussion.
but he's not the MVP. He's a win and a half behind Bautista in WAR, and 40 points back in wOBA. He does play a tougher position, but UZR hates his defense this year (although he's been much better in the past and one-year UZR samples are unreliable). If Granderson wins it over Bautista, it will be for stupid reasons, like that Granderson plays for a better team.
Well, the last time a non-playoff team had a player win the MVP was Barry Bonds in 2004.
Also, it's great that Bautista's wOBA is higher, and fantastic that he's ahead in WAR - but honestly - you aren't going to win an MVP when your team is 13 games back in the standings.
That shows that the talent around you isn't as good, and it's easy to be the most valuable player on that team - to be the most valuable player on a team full of valuable players - that says something too. It's between Gonzalez or Ellsbury, Verlander, and Granderson. And if Granderson steals 7 more bases (he has 23 now), book it.
or the Red Sox, or the Tigers, or any other team in the majors, he would be the most valuable player on his team. Why in the world would we punish him simply because he has the bad luck to play with teammates who aren't very good?
You must be new to this whole "MVP" voting thing huh? When was the last time a Heisman winner came from a team that didn't win their conference? Tebow?
It matters. Maybe it shouldn't, maybe advanced stats should be the end all be all (like the IBM award that Tim Duncan used to win every year), but it matters.
But AAB isn't arguing who will win the MVP, he's arguing who should. Just because a player on a non-contender rarely wins, doesn't mean they shouldn't.
I don't completely agree, anyway. Does it suck that Bautista isn't on the Yankees? Sure. But the fact is, if he's the most valuable on his team, that's great, but if his team doesn't have value, that lowers his inherently.
He is the most valuable player in the majors because he is the one who is least likely to make outs AND he has power to boot. He would be the most valuable player on the Yankees if he was on their team too.
But he's not on the Yankees. His value is mitigated by the fact that he can only take his team so far. To argue that Bautista is the MVP is to argue that awards should be won solely based on statistics. Shouldn't we know better by now?
the MVP is a team award in your eyes.
No, that's not what I'm saying. However, I AM saying that the performance of the team should be a consideration.
can't control how his teammates perform, so how are you not making it a team award?
Easy - I'm not saying the team performance should be the primary consideration. In fact, I think Bautista is a legitimate contender for the award. Verlander, Cabrera, Ellsbury, Granderson, Pedroia and Bautista are all great candidates.
The MVP should be considered a leader on his team - so in essence, he should be making his teammates perform better. How far the leader can carry a team HAS to be part of it. The MVP voters don't look at Sabermetrics - or at least they shouldn't. To make this solely a statistics-based award devalues it.
Look at stats, sure, but factor in the intangibles.
Verlander is the heart and soul of the Tigers. He means more to the Tigers than Granderson means to the Yankees. Verlander is the best player at any position in the league as well.
The Tigers are 19-8 when Verlander starts a game, and 47-50 when he doesn't. That's a pretty valuable player.
He'll win Cy Young, but he won't win MVP. That'll go to a Granderson or AGon.
and it should be Bautista.
While Bautista may be POY, IDK if he is MVP. I don't think there is any set criteria for the voters, some vote for the guy they think is POY while others cast their vote for the guy they feel is MVP. Still have a week and a half of August and all of September to play out, hopefully, from my perspective, JV shows he deserves both awards. 25 wins, 2 no hitters, and the Tigers in the ALDS would get my vote.
they reward or punish the pitcher for a ton of things out of his control (defense, offense, bullpen, luck). And not to nitpick, but he only has one no-hitter.
Verlander's the best pitcher in the AL this season, but Bautista has been unreal.
And I don't think there's any difference between POY and MVP. The most valuable player is the one who gives the most value to his team, regardless of how good that team is.
Speculating/Dreaming. He only has 18 wins as well and the Tigers aren't in the ALDS as of now either.
In my mind their is a difference between MVP and POY. What Verlander MIGHT accomplish down the stretch will be done under greater pressure than what Bautista faces up there in relative anonymity in Toronto.
These are professional athletes. They all operate under tremendous pressure, and do it well, or they never would have reached the majors in the first place. There's no evidence that "clutch" ability is a real thing in the majors. The whole "performing under pressure" thing is probably mostly a just narrative made up by sportswriters because it's more interesting than "and then he [did well/didn't do well/did okay] because of random variation."
Agree to disagree. I think there is much more to playmaking than random variation
I think he was referring to 2 career nonos. Not sure why he's referring to career accomplishments for a seasonal award tohugh.
And bautista is starting to slip. He hit just 4 homers and a .264 average so far this month, with his average slipping almost ten points. Granderson has one fewer home run, almost 20 more RBI, leads the MLB in runs, and has 23 stolen bases. Without Granderson, the Yankees are not in first place in the East.
Triple Slash: .316/.457/.639
UZR (at an easier position): -2.0
Triple Slash: .284/.378/.596
UZR: -9.2 (although I don't fully trust this number this year)
Stolen Bases: 23/33 (69%, which isn't actually very good)
Granderson is having a great year, but he hasn't been as good as Bautista. The Yankees would be even higher up in the standings if they had Bautista instead of Granderson (ignoring positional roster issues).
If Bautista was on the Yankees, I would pretty much guarantee his OBP would plummet because he would not have nearly as many walks. Plus, I don't fully buy he would get the Yankees more wins if you plug him into first and take Tex out, because his defense is worst. Plus Bautista missed a stretch of games this year due to injury.
I'm not saying Bautista isn't worthy of the MVP, I just think Granderson has earned it IMO.
if Bautista was on the Yankees and got walked less, then don't you think he'd have more home runs and doubles. Yeah, he probably would, wouldn't he? He's the best hitter alive right now. The type of season he's having in wRC+ at 195 (95 percent above average) is nearly unheard of. Barry Bonds, Frank Thomas, a few Rockies players 10 years ago when the ball flew there, and that's basically it in the past 30 years.
Best hitter alive right now? I disagree with that. Right now I would say Adrian Gonzalez is the best hitter right now. Would he have more doubles? Probably. Would he have doubled his total of that? Highly doubt it. Increased homers? Maybe so. Who knows how well he'd play in Boston or New York. Places that add on much more pressure to a player than most, if not, all other cities.
Players with equal/better wRC+ in the past thirty years:
Bonds: Numerous times over 200, including when he was a Pirate.
McGwire: 205 in the HR chase, and 191 as an A.
Jeff Bagwell: 207
Frank Thomas: 204
Rickey Henderson: 204
Mike Schmidt: 199
Oddly enough no Rockies hit the 190s, though I think Walker hit into the 180s. But I certainly wouldn't call it nearly unheard of, especially since Bautista's season isn't even finished.
And a bit out of that year range, but Joe morgan put up 197 in 1976. And George Brett got 200 in 1980.
There were also a handfull of others at the 180s range that I didn't mention (Pujols did it I think like three or fours years in a row), which Bautista may very well fall under if his stats keep going down the way they have.
I've rerad this post a few times and I guess I don't get the crux of your argument. Bautista is putting up a season that you have to go back to the roids era(or Pujols) to match. Doesn't that pretty much mean in this era that he is having the vastly superior season and ought to be the MVP?
I'm saying that more than just Bonds, Big Hurt, and some Rockies guys did it, which was the statement I was replying to.
And once again, the season isn't over, and he isn't having a very good August, and was scratched from the game tonite. He leads in OBP and home runs. Those are the only stats he leads in that the MVP voters will look at. Factor in him missing a chunck of games and having less than stellar defense and being on a team no where close to sniffing the playoffs, and you have a recipe for not being MVP. I think the last time a guy on a losing team won the MVP was ARod back in 2003, and was was above and away the top hitter, and won a Gold Glove at SS that year.
Bautista isn't having the "vastly superior" season. Not at all. If we're going to base it on wRC+, then Milton Bradley or Carlos Quinten should've been heads and shoulders above Pedroia. Chipper Jones and David Wright above Jimmy Rollins. Pujols above Howard and Manny above Morneau (Hafner actually led the MLB that year in wRC+, but can't remember if he was a full time DH then or was actually still out in the field).
In fact, it seems only in the last couple years have the leaders in wRC+ won the MVP, and when you look at all their numbers, they're mostly all superior to the competition. I don't see this to be so with Bautista. Vlad wasn't even in the top ten in this stat the year he won the MVP (granted, he was 3rd in the AL, with Melvin Mora and Hafner beating him). And when ARod won his first MVP, Manny (who seems to get stiffed a lot for MVP) and Delgado had higher wRC+.
And I wouldn't necessarily say we're "out" of the steroids era. Guys are still getting busted, and there always seems to be something new to throw the tests. Who knows how long Manny was juicing until he finally got suspended as a Dodger.
the most recent cases besides Barry Bonds and his roids of players surpassing Bautista and his wRC+ of 195 this year are as follows:
1998 Mark McGwire-we have to go back 13 years to find the first non-Bonds player.
1994 Jeff Bagwell and Frank Thomas
1990 Ricky Henderson
1981 Mike Schmidt
1980 George Brett
1976 Joe Morgan
1972 Dick Allen
1966 Frank Robinson
1961 Norm Cash
See how rare this is? It's at best a once every 5 years type of season. Even less so lately. That's why Bautista is the MVP in my book.
Well there probably are peolple still juicing, but across baseball, offense is down as a whole so that's what I meant by out of the roids era. Also Bautista leads in SLG% also. So he's the best at getting on base(OBP) and has the best power(SLG% and HR). Also if you dig a little deeper(not necessary for MVP, but just for analysis), he's got a .314 BABIP which is slightly higher than average, but certainly not unsustainable. Look the only award I honestly care about is that the NL ROY goes to Freeman or Kimbrel, but objectively Bautista is the best hitter in the AL this year and it's by a pretty decent margin.
Speaking of juicing,Could Roger Clemens have pitched every 4th game while using steroids and maybe won 30-35 games in a season? Seems the steroid pitchers may have been misused, they should have been trotting those boys out there every 3rd or 4th day. They should let a pitcher juice for a year and pitch every 4th day and see what the results are. Clemens could have put Walter Johnson and Cy Young to shame.
Just my last tid bit on Bautista and then I'm probably done arguing. MVP should be about a COMPLETE player. After all, the complete players should be considered the most valuable. Bautista's defense...isn't very good. He's tied for third most errors out of all the RF players. Of that bunch, JB has played the fewest games there by almost 10. And out of all outfielders, he still ties for top 5 most errors commited. He's going to be a DH sooner rather than later, and they don't give the MVP to DHs. Just ask Edgar and Ortiz.
Also, AGon has better statistics almost across the board to Pedroia and Ellsbury.
you are hitting significantly better than anybody else, it probably cancels out a few errors here and there. The next highest player in wRC+ behind Bautista is 22 freaking percent behind his 195 mark.
Defense IS included in the WAR stats(although arguments about UZR can certainly happen) and Bautista is still 1.5 wins above Granderson in that. Intrestingly enough Verlander has a higher WAR than Granderson even though its its a negligible difference(6.2 to 6.0).
because it's based only on FIP. I think it's more beneficial to look at pitchers through FIP, xFIP, tERA, and Siera. You have to use the entire complement to better evaluate a pitcher.
I love Verlander, but Bautista deserves it. He's leading the majors in OBP (.458), Slugging percentage (.639), and homeruns (35). Verlander's numbers are exceptional, but I don't think he's been so dominant as to deserve both awards.
One shouldn't have anything to do with the other, but probably will. I can see him being overlooked for MVP if (when) he wins the Cy Young. Granderson is having a great year, but I just don't see anyone else dominate a game everytime he plays like JV has. Maybe we're due for a pitcher to win. What's it been, like 25 years?
WAR isn't the end-all and be-all, but he's got over a win on Verlander. Verlander's probably a top 5 candidate though.
WAR is a fairly all-encompasing stat. It's heavily influenced by wOBA, which is a better calculated version of OPS. It also factors in defense and baserunning. It's probably about the best overall value measure of positional players.
but the defensive metrics used in WAR aren't perfect (nor are the DIPS metrics used for pitchers), so it's problematic to just look at WAR.
A player with 6.5 WAR is not having a better season than a guy with a 6.0 WAR because there is some variance involved in calculations. But it's a pretty safe bet that a guy with say...a 8.0 WAR is probably having a much better year than a guy with a 4.0 WAR.
And if you want a really good DIPS metric for pitchers, go take a look on fangraphs at the new Siera metric.
The defensive component to WAR is not very reliable on a season-by-season basis. However, it has a significant impact on the statistic. Hence why Dustin Pedroia is rated nearly a win better than Curtis Granderson this season, despite Granderson's superior offensive numbers.
I also take issue with other elements of WAR (particualarly the positional replacement rating, the park adustment factor, DIPS for pitchers, etc.). As such, I prefer to look more closely at the stats behind WAR rather than simply looking at WAR.
I think it's extremely unlikely JV wins both awards. A pitcher hasn't won an MVP in almost 20 years, and while he has definately been the most dominant pitcher in the league (and this is coming from a Yankees fan), a lot of things would have to line up right for him which seem unlikely, given that several players will be in the realm of 45 HR, 120+ RBI and at or over .300 by season's end, and Granderson and Ellsbury both add substantial steal totals as well.
Verlander will need to at least win the triple crown. And win it by a fairly comfortable margin, to get the MVP. That won't happen. Weaver is pretty far ahead in ERA, and also has been crazy good this year, just doesn't have the wins or Ks to be considered for Cy Young.
As I said in a previous post, I think Granderson will win MVP. He's leading all of baseball in runs scored, right behind JB in homers, 23 stolen bases, and just flat out playing out of his mind.
But isn't runs scored, to a large extent, a function of having quality hitters behind you? Someone else is driving most of those runs in. Granderson is having an awesome year, but he's in an awesome lineup (and playing half his games in a bandbox).
can be made of RBI's. Runs scored and RBI's are not the greatest way to see how good a player is playing. It's a team stat more than anything.
Weaver's ERA 2.10
Verlander's ERA 2.31
Yeah but check the records bro. One if those two has been on the way up the other spiraling down in flames. Ones teams in first place too, the other is on a team six games out. Bro.
I am not understanding your point. Not even sure you meant to respond to me.
I dont really understand what he said either, but Verlander leads in almost every other important category including Batting Avg. Against and WHIP last I checked as well as overall record, obviously.
One also has a MUCH better lineup hitting for him, too. Both their ERAs have gone up in August. If Weaver had the Ks he had last year, he would certainly be in discussion for Cy Young, like Hernandez last year (who was the most dominant pitcher, but having the MLBs worst offense supporting you makes Ws/Ls suffer).
Case closed, obviously Weaver is better than Verlander.
my argument before about why ERA is such a poor gauge of pitchers. It's not solely controlled by them. And there is a lot of noise involved in ERA. Meaning, it has the ability to variate wildly even when there have been a lot of innings pitched. Let's examine Weaver vs Verlander further.
K%: Verlander 26.2%, Weaver 21.6%
BB%: JV 5.4%, JW 5.8%
FIP: JV 2.68, JW 2.84
xFIP: JV 2.97, JW 3.62
tERA: JV 2.79, JW 2.78
Siera: JV 2.75, JW 3.44
Innings pitched: JV 202.2, JW 188.1
So in pitcher controlled metrics, the only one where Weaver comes out ahead is tERA, and that's by .01 runs. The reason Weaver has a better ERA probably has something to do with the team he plays for (the Angels are better at defense than the Tigers are, something that is not Verlanders fault)
in basically every other relevant pitching metric, including K rate, walk rate, innings pitched, FIP, xFIP, SIERA, and all the Fangraphs "minus" stats.
If Verlander reaches 23 wins and keeps his ERA at 2.3 he should win both the Cy Young and the AL MVP. His numbers after a Tigers loss are amazing and he means more to the Tigers than any other player in the AL does to their team.
I disregard everything LZ Granderson has to say after that moronic OSU-Michigan article he wrote a couple months ago. I think Verlander should be in the discussion, however, but it'll probably go to Granderson(Curtis)
JV should win MVP but ESPN chose Adrian Gonzalez in May because he's a Red Sox.
then why not give a starting pitcher the MVP. They usually are the most valuable players on a team anyways.
In 1999, Pedro Martinez went 23-4, 2.07 ERA, 313 SO, .923 WHIP. The next best AL ERA was David Cone's 3.44.
Pedro finished second in the voting that year to Pudge Rodriguez because multiple writers left him off the ballot completely.
Contrast that to this year where Sabathia and Weaver are putting up similar numbers, and Ellsbury, Gonzalez, and Granderson are having phenomenal years, and it's not gonna happen.
a season where the pitcher actually SHOULD have won the MVP. Also Pudge was not the best positional player in 1999. Manny was.
also still had over 1 game of WAR value higher than the next best player. That's DESPITE that he missed 29 games overall last year. Nobody in the AL was close to Hamilton in run creation last year AND he was good at defense too. He was the MVP, and he deserved to be the MVP regardless of if his team was good or not.
Verlander could get the triple crown this year if he improves his era and I'm surprised people aren't talking about this given how close he is to it right now.
It really is very tough for someone who plays 30-35 games to win the MVP. Even as good as JV has been, history is against him.
The last time a starting pitcher won it was 86 when Clemens went 24-4 with a 2.48 ERA, 10 CG, and 238 K. He also lead the Red Sox to the most wins in the AL and eventually the World Series, which the Sox would have won had Billy Buckner not wet the bed.
If you look at JV's projected stats, however, he's also on pace for 24 wins, and a lower ERA by .17, a lower WHIP, and almost 30 more strikeouts. You could argue he's on pace for a more dominant season.
Also, look at Clemen's supporting cast that year. Jim Rice was 3rd in the MVP voting that season. Wade Boggs lead the league in hitting and had a crazy .453 OBP to finish 7th in the MVP vote. Don Baylor hit 31 HR (in a year when the league leader had 40) to finish 13th in the voting, and freaking Marty Barrett even got some MVP love, finishing 17th in the voting.
Yes, JV has support from some guys whop could get votes - Cabrera, Martinez, probably even Peralta - but you could certainly argue that Clemens had a stronger supporting cast.
It will be tough, but if Verlander can pitch a great final 8 games and get gthe Tigers in the playoffs, he'll make it hard on the voters. It would be the best season a SP has had since 2002, when Randy Johnson went 24-5 with a 2.32 ERA and a crazy 334 K. Even in that season, the Big Unit had to settle for 7th in NL MVP voting. Some guy named Barry Bonds won it that year hitting .370 with 49 HR.
You can't pin that Series loss all on Buckner. The score was tied when he missed that ground ball.
you know, all the other games they played in that series that his error had no affect on.
"Comfortably ahead in ERA" isn't exactly true. Even at this point in the season, Weaver goes out and tosses a 6 2/3 with 5 ER, Verlander tosses a 8 / 1 ER and he's trailing in the ERA conversation. While I don't expect Weaver to, as I think he's only had one game since May giving up more than 4 ER, the miniscule numbers they are both throwing up there and the small sample size mean it just isn't a comfortable lead.