What do you guys think about Cliff Lee for MVP. This guy has been something special this year.
READ
Printable View
What do you guys think about Cliff Lee for MVP. This guy has been something special this year.
READ
It's certainly a possibility that he ends up as the most valuable player in the AL, but I don't think he has much of a shot of actually winning the vote.
Pitchers shouldn't be winning the MVP, IMO...
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
He might get some votes. And deserves them. But highly doubtful he'll win. There are already those out there that don't think a pitcher deserves to be MVP. And there are those out there that don't think a non-playoff team should have the MVP. Add those two together and Lee won't win MVP.
I agree but if one player can win over 30% of there games. That is pretty impressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
There are only a few pitchers in the history of the sport I felt that should have won the MVP in the league. (1995- Randy Johnson)
Plus what Cliff Lee has done this year...he has a shot at MVP. If he countinues this, above or below 30% wins. He has a shot.
Buster Olney (Or someone on Baseball Tonight) said that if the Rockies make the playoffs and if Cook keeps pitching the way he is it would be more likely for Cook to win the MVP than the Cy Young. Because he carried the team into the playoffs on his back.
Because they have the Cy Young Award. And since a hitter can't win the Cy Young Award, pitchers shouldn't be able to win the MVP award, in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
What's this guy's record? Maybe he'd be good for the Cy Young, but Cliff Lee is normally just an OK player, so how is he doing this year?
Yep. That's why I don't see him actually winning, even though he has a legitimate shot at actually being the most valuable player.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
Pedro Martinez, 1999. He was jobbed out of it by two voters that didn't even place him on their ballot AT ALL because he was a pitcher.Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
I've never really understood why a pitcher would win MVP. Sure, pitchers are sometimes the most valuable players in the league. In fact, I think it probably happens far more often than people realize. But we have two separate awards: Cy Young and MVP. The way I see it, the former awards the most valuable pitcher and the latter awards the most valuable position player. I don't see why people treat the MVP as the superior award.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Holy crapp!!! 14-2? That's really good, but I think he's gonna dip now, he isn't historically good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by knicks0929
THAT's why they should win. The most valuable player should win the most valuable player award, no?
Just curious, why do you have an opinion when you don't even know what he has done this season. And what he has done in the past has nothing to do with this season.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/leecl02.shtml
LOL. There is absolutely no way that Cook, or any NL pitcher, is winning the MVP award. The only reason Lee has a shot is because of the relative lack of outstanding position players in the AL this year. The NL has no shortage of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockiesfan4ever
Well, than the definition of the awards need to be changed. Instead of the Most Valuable Player, it should be changed to the Most Valuable Position Player. As it is right now, its the most valuable PLAYER and it's not an award just for position players. Pitchers are eligible, and thus SHOULD be taken into account.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Ridiculously good.Quote:
What's this guy's record? Maybe he'd be good for the Cy Young, but Cliff Lee is normally just an OK player, so how is he doing this year?
agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by filihok
His opinion seemed to be that pitchers in general shouldn't win the MVP, not just LeeQuote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
Well, sure, in theory. The Cy Young Award has become an award with great stature, like the MVP. The Cy was created because position players almost always won the MVP, and the best pitchers weren't being given any awards. So if a pitcher wins the Cy and the MVP, where is the award to the best hitter? The Silver Slugger? That's an award with nowhere near the stature and prestige of the Cy Young and MVP awards.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
If pitchers can win the MVP, then hitters should be eligible for the Cy Young Award. :D
If that's the case, the definitions of the award need to be changed. As they stand now, it's completely wrong to not let a pitcher win the MVP, because the definitions of the award specifically state that a pitcher CAN win the MVP.Quote:
Originally Posted by knicks0929
His peripheral statistics match up nearly exactly with his overall stats. He's changed himself as a pitcher. He's walking a lot less, striking out a lot more, and inducing a lot more groundballs.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Fine...Tony Pena's 1 IP 1 K isn't gonna get him the awardQuote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
I know it was just really funny. Cook is having a nice quiet 13-6 season.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
The funny thing is Cook could be 15-6 if the bullpen hadn't blow 2 games.
I understand the opinion that there should be a seperate hitter's award and a seperate pitcher's award, but the fact of the matter is that, as the definitions of the awards currently stand, pitchers ARE eligible for the MVP, and thus, they should NOT be discounted, and in my opinion, any writer that refuses to vote for a pitcher simply because he's a pitcher should be barred from voting for future awards due to a blatant disregard of the rules that specifically state that pitchers are eligible for the MVP.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
I prefer seeing position players winning the MVP, but I don't see a pitcher (or position player) winning the MVP on not just a non-playoff team, but a last place team...Still have a hard time believing A-rod won it w/ Texas
I suppose I agree with this. They definitely ought to change the definition. Either there ought to be two separate awards, or one encompassing one. It's redundant for a pitcher to be able to win the Cy Young and the MVP.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
You know what I have never understood.....the MVP is almost never given to a player on a last place or even a team that doesn't make the playoffs but the sportswriters dont care if a Cy Young winner is pitching for the 2003 Tigers or the 2001 Mariners
Yes, but he will still probably regress.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
This is because of the opinion, held by numerous sportsrwiters, that, somehow, a player's "value" changes depending on the play of the teammates that surround him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Sox Fan 734
I'm not so sure that he'll regress all that much this year. People have been saying that since his hot start, and he's just been plugging along.Quote:
Originally Posted by knicks0929
I don't think he'll ever repeat a year like he's had this year in the future, but I could easily see him with 20 wins and an ERA below 2.50 at the end of the year.
It's b/c, in my mind, a player turned a horribly crappy team into just a crappy team. So no, I don't like seeing teams on bad teams win. Not saying the MVP or Cy Young winners have to be on playoff teams, but they should at least be on competitive teamsQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
It's that word "valuable" that throws writers for a loop. Somehow a few of them have concluded that "value" does not necessarily equate with actual performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Sox Fan 734
I just think that the player's value is all that should be taken into account. If a player produces 100 runs for a team that sucks, he's just as valuable as a player that produces an equivalent amount of runs for a team that's good. It just so happens that the latter player's teammates were better. The performance of a player's teammates shouldn't be taken into account when discussing the value of a player. The only time I would ever take into account the record of a team when it comes to an award, is in extremely close cases, where say, two players are basically identical in terms of value, but one player's team made the playoffs while the other's didn't. I'd use it as a tiebreaker, and nothing more. But if one player clearly produced more value than another, but his teammates sucked more and so his team overall didn't do as good, he should still win the MVP in my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
The MVP hinging on who makes the playoffs is one of the most ridiculous things when it comes to awards, I think. For example, if the Mets won one more game and the Phillies lost one more game last season, I have no doubt in my mind that David Wright would've won the MVP. Why should the outcome of an award hinge on such a miniscule difference in teammate performance? It shouldn't. All that should matter is the value that individual player provided.
I've been surprised at how well he's fared since his hot start. The fact that his peripherals are equally good means he is not an ideal candidate for immediate regression. Maybe he's finally broken out, I don't know. I just have a hard time believing he can sustain BB and K rates at a level far superior to his previous numbers. He's a better pitcher today than he was the last few years, for sure, but I'm not convinced he's this much better.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Well obviously I'm not saying a 25hr, 100 rbi guy who hits 300 should win the mvp over a 55 hr, 140 rbi, 330 hitter, but in general, if its not a total one-sided argument for the guy on the crappy team, then I'm giving the nod(s) to guys on better teams (even if they may not have had quite as good stats), b/c their production, again in my opinion, is enhanced b/c they helped their team in a playoff push.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Yes, I undertand that baseball isn't a 1 player game, and that if the player's team is in last place, then in all likelihood its noticeably harder to put up equal stats, but that's why I've prefaced my statements that its just my opinion on the matter. No worries, I don't exactly see myself getting a vote anytime soon.
As I said, I have no qualms with the awards going to non-playoff teams, as long as the teams were competitive or w/in reach of the playoffs. Player A winning the MVP for a team who finished 3 GB is different than Player B winning it for a team 16 GB, to me at leastQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
How do you feel about Jimmy Rollins winning it when there were like 4 other players with better numbers who simply didn't make the playoffs?Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
they can only have an impact every 5 days for starters....Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
But they have a much larger impact on the games they play. It's certainly rare in today's style of game that the best pitcher in the league is going to be more valuable than the best position player in the league, but it's certainly possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
But they have a MUCH greater impact per game than a position player.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
If A-Rod sucks it up one game and goes 0-5 with 5K's and 2 errors there are 8 other Yankees to bail him out.
If Ponson gives up 10 runs in three innings the Yankees chance of winnig that game goes way down.
I've never said it had to go to a guy on a playoff team, just a team who had a shot at the playoffs. And for the record, I would have voted for Holliday last season.Quote:
Originally Posted by knicks0929
I wasn't trying to prove you wrong. I was just generally curious how you felt about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
Last year, NL Cy Young Jake Peavy faced 898 batters. A normal MVP candidate gets something like 650 plate appearances. Which of the two impacts more plays?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
EDIT: That was a bit disingenuous of me. A normal MVP candidate also plays in the field most games. My point is that the discrepancy just isn't as wide as most seem to think.