With Justin Verlander of the Detroit Tigers dominating the American Leauge, the argument arises, should he get the MVP? Pitchers obviously are valuable. A pitcher can carry a team during the regular season, and especially during the post-season. However, is the MVP or the Cy Young the appropriate award?
The MVP typically goes to the top individual contributor to a team’s success. Guys who are hitting, fielding, running the bases, and scoring runs. The all around best player. Contributors in the most valuable ways. The Cy Young goes to the best pitcher. Strikeouts, wins, ERA. Yes, Roger Clemens, Don Newcombe, and Rollie Fingers, just to name a few pitchers, in the past won the MVP. I think this is solely a matter of perspective.
Take Verlander, remove him from the Tigers, would they be leading the AL Central? Probably. Now insert everyday players such as Boston’s Adrian Gonzalez and the Yankee’s Curtis Granderson. Granted, the lineups these two belong to are phenomenal. But their individual statistics are phenomenal and obviously both are in the hunt for the AL MVP. In the AL Verlander doesn’t bat, Granderson and Gonzalez are playing defense when not hitting. Does this give them the edge? I think it does. Without those RBI and homers, the best pitching will only go so far.
I can see an argument for a pitcher winning the MVP. However, I think this should be rare and I don’t think this season’s AL MVP should go to Verlander. He gets this season’s Cy Young.
Agree? Disagree? Let me know what you think!