skyking162

I’m sure the boys over at FJM will tear this article apart in due time, but it makes good fodder as an introduction for my MVP analysis. Jason Stark tries to lay out the argument against Johan Santana winning the MVP award. I’m not saying Johan’s the AL MVP, but his case has nothing to do with what Stark wrote about.

1. THERE’S A REASON THEY INVENTED THE CY YOUNG
And that reason was to make sure that pitchers — specifically, starting pitchers — got the trophies, the honors, the accolades and the cash they deserve. You can look that up.

Even a half-century ago, it was obvious the MVP had become largely a position player’s award. Not in every case. Not in every year. Not with every player or every pitcher. But had pitchers been viewed as equal MVP material, there would have been no reason the Cy Young would have materialized out of the mist in the ’50s.

You want to know why pitchers don’t win the MVP as often as position players? Because the most valuable player tends to be a position player. Crazy, right? It’s not definitionally true the best position player is better than the best pitcher, but the ceiling on the value of a hitter is higher than that of a pitcher, making the odds quite good that some good hitter will outperform the best pitcher in any given year.

And sure, that’s a decent reason for creating the Cy Young. Let’s recognize top pitching. That’s also why we have Gold Gloves and Silver Sluggers, to honor the top fielders and hitters. But should Beltran winning a Gold Glove remove him from the MVP vote? Should Schindler’s List winning the Oscar for cinematography make it ineligible to win Best Picture? No, those are sub-awards. Everybody’s eligibile for the the MVP. And who should get the MVP? Whoever ends up being the most valuable. Brilliant, I know.

2. “TRIPLE CROWN” IS NOT A SYNONYM FOR “MVP”

Stark spends way too long showing that pitchers who won the pitching triple crown rarely win the MVP and therefore Johan shouldn’t. I don’t think anyone’s going to argue that winning the triple crown should automatically translate into winning the MVP, just like leading the league in RBIs isn’t an automatic ticket. Excellent strawman, Jason. You can’t show that a certain player is or is not the MVP without comparing him to everyone else.

3. WINNING PERCENTAGE DOESN’T EQUAL MVP

Jason discounts the shoddy argument that Johan’s the MVP because the Twins are 26-6 in games that he pitches by showing a number of other impressive records turned in by the likes of Kenny Rogers and Woody Williams. I commend Stark on de-bunking this awful argument, but if he thinks it’s a main argument for Johan’s MVP candidacy, well, he’s really just beating another strawman. You know what Johan’s main argument for being the MVP is? That he’s really frakkin’ valuable.

Stark concludes his article with one final point, although he doesn’t give it a number. With the help of John McClaren, he reminisces about the 1995 season, when Randy Johnson had a phenomenal season helping the Mariners into the playoffs. Stark writes that Randy deserved and received zero MVP talk that year. Why?

You never heard [any talk] because Martinez hit .356 that year and Buhner mashed 40 homers. And above all, you never heard it because it sold the position players on that team short to suggest it was a pitcher who made those Mariners what they were.

Let me paraphrase. Jason Stark believes that to credit Randy Johnson (or Johan Santana) as the MVP would take away from the performances of two great hitters on their team. I’d like to stipulate that any team who makes the playoffs has a number of great players and that all of those players can provide a lot of value to that team. Just because one is deigned the most valuable shouldn’t take away from how valuable the others were. The Twins would not make the playoffs if Joe Mauer was replaced by Jorge Posada. The Twins would not make the playoffs if Justin Morneau was replaced with Travis Lee. The Twins would not make the playoffs if Johan Santana was replaced with Jason Johnson. They’re all valuable! They all deserve tons of credit.

Does Carlos Beltran winning the MVP mean that Albert Pujols and Ryan Howard didn’t have great seasons? Does giving the Cy Young to Johan Santana mean that Roy Halladay wasn’t the second greatest pitcher in the AL?

For as long an article as it was, Jason Stark really had nothing more to say than:

• Here are some strawman arguments and I’m exhaustingly showing they’re bogus.
• History usually doesn’t give the award to pitchers, so we shouldn’t.
• Making a pitcher the MVP, even if he’s the most valuable player, is an insult to position players.

I get it — let’s not give the Most Valuable Player award to the most valuable player. Instead, let’s make up lots of convoluted rules that make the award meaningless. It’s hard enough figuring out who the most valuable player actually is without dealing with crackhead modifications.

Popularity: 2% [?]

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 21st, 2006 at 1:09 pm and is filed under Baseball. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.