Re: MVP - Anyone still arguing against Verlander?
posted at 9/9/2011 6:01 PM EDT
In Response to Re: MVP - Anyone still arguing against Verlander?
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: MVP - Anyone still arguing against Verlander? : Lucky? I couldn't agree less. Take a look at those stats I laid out again, maybe he's fortunate on BABIP, but the fact is he's consistently dominant. More Ks than base runners. Allowed 4+ ER only 5 times. That is simply not luck, that's dominance. And because he's been a very good pitcher for his career, that is a mark against him? I don't get that, MVP, not MVIP (improved player). As far as where he pitches, you can't really factor that in too much. If he pitched in the NL west, me may be 27-0 with a sub 2 ERA and there really wouldn't be a discussion. You could make a similar case that the Sox/Yankee players up for discussion have a quality lineup all around them, leading to better pitches to hit, more RBI opportunites, and more likelihood of being driven in. It balances out, you go with production and importance to their team. Also, I think someone made the point here, but I must have glossed over it. Everyday players are worth more? Figure about 550-600 ABs for an everyday player. Figure 215-225 innings for Verlander (and it's likely going to be more, he's at 209 right now), meaning he pitches to 645-675 at bat-ters, as it were. He only pitches one day out of 5? Well a hitter only has to bat once every 9 times, and maybe has an easy 2/3 chance day in the field. How's that more valuable than a guy like Verlander who takes 90% of the load every 5th day? A pitcher like Verlander faces about 27 batters every 5th game, a hitter will get 20-25 ABs in that same span. The impact on the bullpen, both before AND after have been discussed. What a hitter does one day has no bearing on the day before or after. Not so for pitchers. And to take it a step further, if you have one pick to start a franchise, do you go with the undisputed std ace, or the undeniably talented hitter? The majority would take the pitcher and not question it.
Posted by ma6dragon9[/QUOTE]
Well, all of the stats that make Verlander look dominant are related to BABIP. If more of those balls fall in, then the WHIP and base runners go up. If more runners are on base, then more them score, and the ERA goes up. He's a great pitcher, but he's more in line with the 3.2 ERA, 1.1 WHIP, 18 wins we can usually expect from him than he is the numbers he's putting up this year.
4 of Verlander's 5 losses came against the AL West, so so much for that argument.
I'll buy the argument that Sox & Yankee position players numbers should be adjusted for their offenses and home parks, but that should also adjust guys like Sabathia and Shields into the Cy Young discussions. In fact, Fangraphs adjusts out BABIP in it's FIP stats, and comes to the conclusion that Sabathia has been a more valuable pitcher than Verlander this year.
Like I said, I don't have a problem with a pitcher being an MVP, but keep in mind no matter how well Verlander pitches to those 27 batters, he's not going to affect more than one win or loss. If it's a 1-0 win, the guy who hit the solo shot is just as responsible for the win as the guy on the mound, and who knows what he did the rest of the week.
If I were building a franchise, I wouldn't do it around a Verlander or an Ellsbury / Granderson, but if I could invent a player to build a franchise around, it would probably be (in this order) Catcher, SS, Pitcher, CF, 2B, 3B, RF, LF, 1B. Why? Because the offensive production out of Catchers and SS is usually pitiful. So if you get a stud in either of those positions, and round out the rest of your team with average hitters and pitchers, you have a leg up on a team with an average everything and a single stud starting pitcher.