Should a Pitcher Win the MLB MVP?

Next week, Major League Baseball will roll out the “major” awards for presentation:

• Wednesday, Nov. 12:  the Cy Young Awards
• Thursday, Nov. 13:  the Most Valuable Player Awards

Live Feed

FanSided

With that, the annual debate will ensue – with particular emphasis on this season, given the dominance of

along with the

non-

dominance of National League position players:

should pitchers be eligible/should pitchers be able to win the MVP?

The Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) have remained consistent:  their rules allow for pitchers to be considered.  In fact, their ballot contains the following wording:

"Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters."

Beyond that, the definition is open to the discretion of the voters.

History Lessons

Wikipedia tells us that the original MVP award was called the Chalmers Award… kinda.  It was initially limited (in 1910) to the batting average winner for all of baseball – both leagues.  From 1911 to 1914, the award’s purpose was expanded:  one winner in each league, being awarded to the “most important and useful player to the club and to the league.”  Even then, baseball writers were those empowered with making the selection.

Walter Johnson

http://www.kshs.org/portraits/graphics/johnson_walter.jpg

Of those first 8 MVP’s, pitcher Walter Johnson was the AL winner in 1913.  In 1911, Christy Matthewson was 2nd in the NL balloting with another pitcher – Pete Alexander – third.  The 1911 AL voting also put Ed Walsh of the White Sox second.  So clearly, pitchers were a highly-competitive part of the process from the very first.

The Chalmers Award was discontinued after 1914, though it was revived in 1922 by the American League.  George Sisler won this initial AL-only MVP and Babe Ruth the second in 1923.

In 1922, pitcher Eddie Rommel was second with Bullet Joe Bush 4th.  Ruth won in a landslide (64 points, 1st on every ballot), though the highest-ranked pitcher was George Uhle at 8th place (13 points).

In 1924, the National League chimed in, and pitchers swept the MVP voting with Dazzy Vance (NL) and Walter Johnson (AL) taking the honors.  It should be noted, though, that there was a rule forbidding repeat winners in the AL through the 1928 season.

After a couple of additional gaps, the “modern” MVP award process was adopted from 1931 and beyond.  Pitchers have won several times, including a 3-year stretch from 1943-45, and 3 of 4 years in the NL from 1933-36.

Enter the Cy

The introduction of the Cy Young award (1956, after Young’s passing in 1955) has lead to fewer pitchers being considered for MVP.  The National League, for instance, have not had a single pitcher named as MVP since 1968 (Bob Gibson).  It’s been a lot more recent in the AL (Justin Verlander, 2011), though before that it was reliever Dennis Eckersley.

Though the MVP rules had not changed, it did seem that the writers themselves put something of a distinction into the two awards, and thus have effectively excluded pitchers from consideration in all cases except for the most dominant performances… and generally in the absence of any overt offensive dominance.  That notwithstanding, pitchers have managed to win a few times.

Such could the case this year.

Dominance

Clayton Kershaw’s stats are indeed impressive (NL-only comps):

• 1.77 ERA (next closest:  Johnny Cueto at 2.25)
• 1.81 FIP (if you believe in FIP.  Next closest:  Jordan Zimmerman, 2.68)
• 7.2 fWAR (beats 2nd place by 2.0).
• 21-3 record (Adam Wainwright and Cueto both won 20, but also lost 9)
• 10.85 K per 9 innings (only other starting pitcher above 10.0 was Stephen Strasburg: 10.13)
• He was merely 4th in BB-per-9:  1.41.  #1 Zimmerman was only .1 better.
• Homers per 9 innings?  2nd.  Wainwright beat him out by .01.

Notice how many different names we’re comparing Kershaw to:  it isn’t like there was one single guy who matched him toe-to-toe – Kershaw was dominating all of the categories by himself against the entire field.

But is that enough to sway voters?

The Objections

The most common objections to supporting a pitcher for the MVP award are as follows:

• They’ve got “their own award”
• They only pitch every 5th day.

Regarding the first bit, it frankly means little to me about how many different pieces of hardware they’re carrying.  Does a Cy winner become ineligible for the Gold Glove awards?  Comeback Player of the Year?  Rookie of the Year (if otherwise eligible)?  So why single out the MVP and Cy awards as somehow mutually exclusive?

Does the Screen Actors Guild stop awarding Academy Awards once an actor gets one?  They might actually like that, to spread the love around a bit for marketing purposes, but no:  there are winners of multiple awards on Oscar night.

In competitions, the best should be rewarded.  That’s the gist of the word “competition”.  It is a battle to determine the best, the highest, the fastest, the most productive… the winner.  Failure to do so actually muddies the waters and diminishes the honors and accomplishments of those receiving the trophies.

But… every 5th day?

Regarding the playing time issue, first recall that the original voters of the MVP didn’t think anything less of the pitchers.  Granted, that involved smaller rotations and 3-4 days’ rest instead.  But the issue was still there:  pitchers have never been everyday players.

Pittsburgh Pirates center fielder

.Mandatory Credit: Frank Victores-USA TODAY Sports.

Kershaw averaged just over 6 innings per start this season – for sake of the math, I’ll round it to 200 innings pitched (198.1 actually).

Andrew McCutchen, probably the leading NL MVP contender among the position players, is credited with 1286 innings in 2014, which on the surface sounds like a huge 6.5-to-1 mismatch.

Except…

• In the field, McCutchen was involved with 316 plays (“Balls in Zone” plus balls “Out of Zone”).
• At the plate, he had 648 plate appearances.
• So that’s 964 total opportunities to produce results, or .74 per inning played.

Kershaw, by contrast, threw 2722 pitches and produced 595 outs… clearly with direct involvement during every one of those 200-ish innings.  His involvement was (clearly) 3.0 outs per inning, ignoring his own fielding and hitting.

Yes, I agree – there are going to be flaws with this methodology, but ask yourself which consideration is more flawed:

• McCutchen playing 146 games vs. Kershaw’s 32 (a 7:1 ratio)
• 964 opportunities (McCutchen) vs. 595 outs (Kershaw) (a 1.6:1 ratio)
• 648 plate appearances vs. 595 outs (1.1:1 ratio)  <– this is where most of the value is derived for both players
• 964 opportunities vs. 2722 pitches  (a 1:2.8 ratio in the other direction)

My point here is that the “every 5th day” argument seriously diminishes the involvement and intensity at which Kershaw – and all pitchers – are involved in the action on days they are pitching.  Pitchers create/control the action; hitters generally react to action (both at the plate and in the field).

When you actually do the math, though, I believe I can make the case that it isn’t “every day” vs. “once every 5 days”.   It seems to be a lot more like 648 PA’s vs. 595 outs.  And that math should bring pitchers back into the MVP conversation – every year.

My conclusion? Kershaw for MVP.