Not all messages are displayed:
show all messages (60 of them)
A guy asked James about Verlander's MVP today. I think this is a good, methodical approach to that question, the main point being that pitchers today are less qualified than 30 years ago:
It has always been clear (and remains clear now) that a BATTER has more control over the outcome of a batter/pitcher matchup than does a pitcher. It's a 50/50 game, but the pitcher's share is divided with the defense (that is, with the fielders), so that batting is more controlling than pitching, at bat to at bat.
This was off-set (and more than off-set), through the mid-1970s, by the fact that pitchers worked more batter-pitcher confrontations than did batters. In 1973, for example, Wilbur Wood faced 1,531 batters, Gaylord Perry faced 1,410, Nolan Ryan faced 1,355, Bill Singer faced 1,348, Bert Blyleven 1,321, Jim Colborn 1,287, Mickey Lolich 1,286, and 35 other pitchers faced more than 1,000 batters--while no matter faced a pitcher, in a season, typically more than 750 times in a season.
By 1983, however, only 18 pitchers faced 1,000 batters in the season. By 1993 only 12 did; by 2003 only one did (Roy Halladay). Last year Chris Carpenter led the majors in batters faced, with 996.
Since the leading pitchers in modern baseball only face about 25% more hitters than hitters face pitchers, and since the batter still has more control over the outcome of each event than the pitcher does, it is difficult, in modern baseball, for the pitcher to be the Most Valuable Player. Not saying that it CAN'T happen or doesn't happen, but it's difficult, and rare.
The questioner's objection wasn't that pitchers can't be the MVP, but that if you give it to a pitcher, you've shut out position players from the top two awards. His suggestion: a Cy Young, an equivalent award for position players, and an MVP for the whole league.
― clemenza, Monday, 14 May 2012 19:41 (eleven years ago) link