The Verlander MVP Plot Thickens
Justin Verlander notched win No. 20 this past weekend. With the victory, he became the season’s first to reach the milestone, and perhaps most impressively, the first AL pitcher to hit the 20-win mark through August since Roger Clemens did it in 1997 with Toronto.
Combine factoids like this with his tremendous numbers so far, and it’s easy to see why many are boarding the Verlander-for-Cy Young Award bandwagon. And that might just be the start: Verlander now has emerged as a legitimate candidate for the American League’s Most Valuable Player award. But should be considered for the honor? In fact, should any pitcher win an MVP? Heck, is Verlander even a lock for the Cy Young?
All things considered, he’s having a phenomenal year. But it isn’t totally clear that Verlander is having the best season among all AL pitchers. Yes, he leads his league in pitcher WAR and innings pitched, has the second highest K/BB ratio, the third highest strikeout rate and — at 2.78 — the lowest SIERA. Yet the separation in wins above replacement — between he, CC Sabathia and Jered Weaver — is minute given the error bars surrounding the metric.
Has Verlander clearly been better than both Sabathia and Weaver? Even if the answer is yes, is it resounding enough to suggest that he’s not only the best pitcher in the league, but the most impactful player to his team? Verlander isn’t having a Clemens-circa-1986 season, and he won’t come close to matching Pedro Martinez’s greatest hits either. He isn’t even likely to match Zack Greinke’s 2009 performance — or, for that matter, his own 2009 numbers.
His statistics that year mean little with respect to the current season, but they aptly illustrate the main point here: Verlander is pitching beautifully, but he isn’t having one of those can’t-miss years that we’ll remember a decade from now. Given the existence of an award specifically designed to honor pitchers, he just doesn’t seem to be having a season transcendent enough to take that and the MVP.
The driving forces in his candidacy are largely ancillary to his actual performance: Throwing a no-hitter and having a few just-misses only add to his aura. The Tigers lead in the AL Central despite an otherwise mediocre rotation, an average bullpen and a .500ish run differential, also scores him points.
Toss in the whole 20-wins-before-September — and the thought that he might “win” 25 games — and it’s easy to see why traditional voters would think he is having one of those transcendent seasons. Nobody’s going to argue that Verlander isn’t having an excellent season, but his MVP candidacy hinges on far too many factors that are less important than they’re perceived to be.
For what it’s worth, even Verlander’s manager is scatterbrained on the topic. Jim Leyland has said that he doesn’t believe a pitcher should ever win the MVP award — but he would support Verlander, given the current workings of the system. His thought process was similar to that of virtually everyone who’s against pitchers winning the award: It isn’t feasible that someone who appears in 30 to 35 games has more of an impact than an everyday player who appears in 150-plus games.
Is that true, though? Consider this: Verlander has already faced 830 batters, while a league-leading hitter might step to the plate 750 times. The disconnect deals with the cross-section of time, perception and impact.
Though Verlander will essentially have more plate appearances than a single batter, the high concentration of his batters faced in a smaller number of games detracts from the perceived impact. A batter stepping to the plate four times per game, in 160 games, is thought to be capable of impacting more games, while a starting pitcher can only impact a game in which he starts. Not to say this is the wrong way to think, but it’s rarely brought up when discussing a pitcher’s MVP candidacy.
So is Verlander the best pitcher in the American League — or are all the other events around him clouding his candidacy and overrating his season? Certainly, winning 20 games is impressive, but the number has more to do with run support than it does the exploits of an individual pitcher. A team that wins its division generally does it with a well-rounded roster. And while throwing a no-hitter is a rare feat, it shouldn’t be a differentiating factor when determining the best pitcher during any given season.
Which leads us here: Everyone needs to take a step back from the Verlander-for-MVP talk. First, let’s wait until it’s clear that he has been the best pitcher in his own league.
Eric is an accountant and statistical analyst from Philadelphia. He also covers the Phillies at Phillies Nation and can be found here on Twitter.
Didn’t Curt Schilling hit 20 wins in 2002 with the D’backs??
In August, that is.
First AL pitcher — sorry for the confusion there.
I don’t really understand the Verlander for MVP thing, not that I don’t think a pitcher should be able to win. Of course, pitchers should be able to win. But I don’t think our perception towards pitchers has really changed that much in the last twelve years or so (or else Halladay would be a candidate), and there are plenty of hitters in the AL having worthy seasons.
I think the interesting question here is not if Verlander is the MVP. Rather, it lays in what the psychological factors that make the Verlander case different in the minds of potential voters than pretty much any other great pitcher in recent memory. The twenty wins thing doesn’t seem enough, nor does the no-hitter, nor do the two together, etc . . . So why is this case different? (Perceptually, not actually.)
Well, I think the factors I outlined above lead to the perception: 20 wins in August, no-hitter and just-misses on a couple other games, and the Tigers leading the division despite a .500ish run differential and mediocre rotation outside of him makes it feel like HE is the reason the Tigers are where they are. Team success likely looms large in the perception. I also think the extent to which he has dominated opponents on occasion plays into it. His starts have become events given that he might no-hit an opponent on any given night.
Yeah, those things play into it for sure, I agree. But I don’t think it’s enough to actually have people thinking he’s an MVP candidate. People pretty much have eschewed the pitcher as MVP since Pedro lost the first of the two he probably deserved, and there have been pitcher’s seasons that resemble this one to a great extent. So why all of a sudden the change in perception?
Not that it’s a bad thing, per se. Just curious. Curious beyond any explanation merely related to his numbers. Though his numbers definitely factor into the equation.
Another factor could be the lack of a clear-cut favorite among voters. Some won’t vote Bautista because of the stupid “they’d lose without him” argument. Others won’t be able to choose between AGonz, Pedroia and Ellsbury. And others will conclude that the Yanks would still make the playoffs without Granderson. So the guys who you would think are more traditional candidates have issues with their candidacies from the perception of the voters.
Agreed to lack of clear-cut position player. When Michael Young’s name is getting dropped…
$.02: He’s the clear Cy-Young favorite.
“the Tigers leading the division despite a .500ish run differential and mediocre rotation outside of him makes it feel like HE is the reason the Tigers are where they are”
I don’t get it. Isn’t that not only true, but also precisely why he has entered the MVP discussion? Detroit would be a .500 team without him.
Not that I think he’ll win it, but the reason he’s in the discussion is similar to the reason Joey Bats may not be to many voters: The definition of “valuable”, or better said, those voters interpretation of it.
I think it has mostly to do with the fact that offense is down, and that no offensive player is having a truly transcendent season either (at least not one that plays for a playoff team which ALWAYS gets play: looking at you Jose Bautista).
Also, I think even before the Weaver game yesterday JV was a clear cut Cy young front runner. At this point, I think he would have to have a really bad September to not win the award.
They have a guy playing first (I think his name might be Cabrera)… who’s putting up similar offensive #’s to the pother presumptive media MVP Adrian Gonzalez. The defense isn’t the same but offensively he gets nearly no attention.
I think the Tigers would also likely not be where they are without him or a guy named Aviles.
This is just another ESPN/MSM driven thing as it makes a good story. At this point it probably should be Bautista and then Granderson unless you put way too much weight in one year defensive sample sizes, which other than Pedroia are not in line with players past performances.
As somebody who would cast his MVP vote for Verlander today (if I had one), I can say that the difference is largely based on the team around him, and the other players in the mix. The Detroit Tigers have a 6 game lead in the AL Central. Justin Verlander is the only starter they have with an ERA+ over 100. While they have a star in Miguel Cabrera and a couple of guys having surprisingly good years in Avila and Pehralta, the Tigers’ playoff berth can be largely attributed to Justin Verlander. That seperates him from a lot of the clearly-better pitching seasons of recent vintage. Pedro Martinez in ’99-’00 was probably the greatest pitcher of all time, but the Red Sox in ’99 got a transcendent short season from Bret Saberhagen and very solid seasons from Pat Rapp and Tim Wakefield, and in 2000 they missed the playoffs.
Also, your comment that there are “plenty of hitters” having worthy seasons also is telling — when there are a sea of hitters in contention, it’s tough for one to stand out from the crowd. Randy Johnson was amazing in 2001 and 2002, but, well, Barry Bonds. It’s a lot easier to stand out above a sea of other candidates — especially when they all have their problems (Bautista’s team won’t make the playoffs; Granderson and all the Red Sox are on teams that would make the playoffs even without them).
On the whole, it just seems like, even though his year isn’t as good as Greinke’s 2009 or any of the great Johnson / Martinez / Clemens / Maddux years, he’s the best choice for MVP this season.
He might not even match his 09 #’s? lol..He is already at or better than all besides K’s..That is a bunk argument..And you bring up 1 stat..WAR for an argument for Weaver and CC..WOW..You really reached in this article..
WAR isn’t one stat, it is multiple statistics combined into a single metric to easily compare players.
A statistic is a summary of data. WAR is one statistic, BABIP is another.
Verlander leads MLB in WHIP by a considerable margin, not to mention IP and K. His opponents have an OPS of .545, leading MLB once again. It’s perfectly rational to make the case that he isn’t having a Pedroesque season and is thus undeserving of MVP, but at this point it’s clear both in stats and in flesh that he’s the best starter in the AL. The scary part is he has one or two more seasons before he hits his peak – think Halladay with a 98mph FB up his sleeve.
If a pitcher has to be pedroesque, there would only be two or three MVPs to pitchers and teams are really stupid to invest in an overvalued asset AND one that is very likely to lose value due to injury.
I think that the pitcher MVP argument is that they don’t just have to be the most valuable player, they have to be substantially better than the most valuable position player, then they get the MVP.
I must be out of the loop. I havent’ heard anyone suggest Verlander could be an MVP, only heard Halladay or Lee could be. Even then, I think it’s silly talk in August. Is baseball really that boring this month? Although, I’d never actually thought about the BF to PA connection before, so I’m really glad this was written.
Haha — yeah you’re completely out of the loop if you haven’t heard Verlander for MVP talk. It surfaced before the Halladay talk came into play. Mike and Mike of ESPN Radio championed the Verlander for MVP talk and it took off from there.
Most of the shows I’ve seen have suggested that there could be as many as 7 players “deserving” of the AL MVP.
I think Bautista is clearly the AL MVP, unless we want to award some type of “Division Winner” or “Contender” bonus, then it could be Grandy, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Verlander, etc.
It is not offensive for Verlander to be discussed as the MVP (if you allow pitchers for the award), and the point could be made that a proper MVP discussion couldn’t take place without him.
The only way he’s not a candidate is if we view fWAR for pitchers as being a true representation of pitcher value (I don’t, FWIW).
IMO, the biggest thing in the “Putting the V in MVP” discussion is that Verlander has been almost 3 times more valuable than any other DET pitcher, so it creates the perception that Verlander is carrying DET to the playoffs. Now, the average fan probably isn’t looking at WAR, but they nbotice that Verlander is awesome and the rest of DET’s pitchers are not all that awesome.
lol who has mention lee as an MVP candidate?
I heard Lee mentioned as a possible on the Jim Rome show on Friday. It wasn’t Jim that brought him up, it was the guy filling in for him that afternoon.
Why we emphasize individual W/L records over team W/L records in starts is beyond me
I’d go a step further and say that we should pay more attention to team won-loss records in games started by a starting pitcher versus the team’s won-loss record in games started by his rotation-mates (think Steve Carlton 1972).
That gives a bonus award to pitchers on bad teams. It’s a lot easier to be better than the rest of your team when the rest of your team is bad than it is if the rest of your team is good. Stick 1972 Steve Carlton on the 1998 Yankees, and his winning percentage is not going to be that much better than the rest of the team’s. Players shouldn’t be awarded extra points just because their teams suck.
There is the whole “pitchers don’t need to defend their position as much as other position players to factor into this analysis.
Talking about plate appearances allows defense (of which we know the least about) to be swept under the rug.
My personal feeling is that arguments about whether a pitcher affects his team enough to be considered “most valuable” are not worth having. The Cy Young Award is specifically for pitchers. Obviously the MVP award’s name/rules doesn’t have to restrict it to being specifically for position players, but over the years that’s mostly how it’s worked out, and I don’t see a problem with just saying by convention MVP should be the equivalent to the Cy Young for position players. Cy for pitchers, MVP for position hitters, Q.E.D. Personally I’m fine with that.
Of course, in theory the Hank Aaron award is supposed to be the Cy Young for hitters…but no one really cares about it so it doesn’t work out that way.
Which came first though? Did MVP become a position player’s award, and then CY got important? Or was it the other way around?
The reason I ask, it makes me wonder if 2 or 3 pitcher MVPs could vault the HA award into relevance.
Deadpool, pitchers won MVP awards routinely before the Cy Young award was created. Off the top of my head, Hal Newhauser twice, Carl Hubbell twice, Jim Konstanty, Spud Chandler, Bucky Walter, Mort Cooper, Dizzy Dean… I’m sure there were others… since each league started getting its own Cy Young in 1967, the only starters to get an MVP are McLain and Gibson in ’68, Vida Blue, and Roger Clemens.
QNED.
Verlander’s case was a lot stronger a couple of weeks ago. His last 3 or 4 starts have been pretty bad (yet he still got the All Important Win in each one).
Yes 3 earned runs or less and 8+ks per game is pretty bad.
His walks are way up and his control has not been as sharp as earlier in the year. Of course, Bad Verlander is still pretty damn good. Just not Cy Young level.
In his last start he gave up 4 runs in 6 IP with 6 Ks.
Maybe “bad” relative to Verlander himself….still pretty darn good compared to everyone else.
Giving up 4 runs to the Twins is pretty pathetic, if you ask me. I think he needs to miss a start to rest up for the post season.
Last 3 or 4 starts were pretty bad? Yeah, his last one was. The 3 starts before that he posted a 2.07 ERA over 21.2 innings, allowing 13 hits and 7 walks in that time (that’s still less than a runner per inning) and also racking up 26 k’s. Don’t know what stats such as Siera would come out to over those 3, but it’s probably good and irrelevant considering the sample.
Where is the analysis? I don’t care if Verlander wins the MVP or Cy Young or any other award that baseball writers vote for, but you’re not saying anything here. It seems pretty clear that he’s been the best pitcher to this point, and you present no argument otherwise.
“Though Verlander will essentially have more plate appearances than a single batter, the high concentration of his batters faced in a smaller number of games detracts from the perceived impact.”
No, it detracts from the actual impact. A dominating pitcher means that those 35 games aren’t as close as the average game for the team, which means that their impact is smaller. Throw in the fact that he rarely pitches the 9th inning, and you get a much lower Win Probability Added for pitchers as opposed to top hitters. I’m not saying that Verlander shouldn’t be in the discussion, but it is reasonable to argue that pitchers are not as valuable as hitters because of the concentration of batters faced.
To flip your point on its head, if a dominating pitcher means that those 35 games aren’t as close, doesn’t that mean that pitcher is substantially altering his team’s chances at winning all 35 of those games?
Look at it this way: If a dominating pitcher can produce a .750 record in games they are involved in from a team that otherwise has a .500 talent level, that pitcher is almost singlehandedly the difference between an 81 win team and a 90 win team. By concentrating his production, the team maximizes its return from him.
Now the above is obviously a gross simplification, but it illustrates the point that a concentration of production does not necessarily detract from true value.
Excellent point, Sean, it’s a very interesting argument to have.
I agree on the concentration argument. However it is clear that the best pitcher generally acquires less war/PA than a hitter. Why is this? Is there less variance in pitcher performance than for hitters? The last seems like a dangerous argument because there are more hitters than starting pitchers and as performance in mlb is not Gaussian distributed this is not straightforward.
Here’s how I take the concentration argument. A great pitcher will pitch in a number of games where his marginal strikeouts and awesomeness in the 8th inning are hardly meaningful due to a 5-0 score (for example). I think a higher proportion of a great pitcher’s games will tend to do his, since a pitcher has more control over any one game than a hitter.
This obviously gets into context a little bit, but I don’t believe it’s random context. The studly pitcher will always create more lopsided victories as a proportion of his games pitched, and I think WAR thus overestimates the value of a high-quality pitcher.
Also, comparing PAs and BFs seems logical at first because there should be an equal number across the league. However, I think when you get to the extreme players (MVP/CY candidates) each batter’s PA must be more important that each pitcher’s BF.
One way to look at it: the league average player makes an out about 68% of the time. Verlander makes outs 76% of the time (+8%) while Bautista makes outs 55% of the time (-13%). In terms of OBP “above average,” Bats seems to have to advantage per PA (BF).
It would probably be more telling to do this with wOBA, but I’m not sure if a wOBA against exists for pitchers. Also, obviously the distribution of OBPs among players in MLB is likely not Gaussian (as somebody mentioned), so means may not be the best thing to use.
LN, the problem with that line of thought is that it gets into context a lot, not a little. A pitcher has no control over how many runs his team scores*. If you have two identical pitchers, and one is spotted 8 runs a game by his offense, and the other only 3, is the latter more valuable simply because his offense isn’t very good?
Nonetheless, even if you’re correct, wouldn’t that play into what I was talking about in my prior post? In other words, if a top pitcher can generate lots of “never in doubt” wins, don’t we need to credit those wins to him (or at least credit the difference between the outcome he produces versus the team’s average outcome)? There is obviously a substantial value there that even a top hitter cannot replicate. Is it more valuable to stack the deck in your favor 20% of the time, or to marginally improve your odds for every hand?
*Ignoring the NL pitcher as hitter situation for simplicity’s sake
I’m a huge Tigers fan, and a big Verlander fan, but I don’t think he’s the MVP this year. I do, however, take issue with one statement in the article.
“Verlander isn’t having a Clemens-circa-1986 season”
Clemens in 1986: 24-4, 2.48 – 254 IP – 238K – 67BB – 169 ERA+ – 0.969 WHIP
Verlander in 2011: 20-5, 2.38 – 215.2 IP – 218K – 48BB – 167 ERA+ – 0.904 WHIP
If Verlander can manage to keep it together for another month, his numbers will be almost identical to those of Clemens in 1986, if not better.
“Consider this: Verlander has already faced 830 batters, while a league-leading hitter might step to the plate 750 times. The disconnect deals with the cross-section of time, perception and impact.
Though Verlander will essentially have more plate appearances than a single batter, the high concentration of his batters faced in a smaller number of games detracts from the perceived impact. A batter stepping to the plate four times per game, in 160 games, is thought to be capable of impacting more games, while a starting pitcher can only impact a game in which he starts. Not to say this is the wrong way to think, but it’s rarely brought up when discussing a pitcher’s MVP candidacy”
I’ve seen this line of argument a couple times recently, and I don’t think it’s entirely fair to that viewpoint. It is true that baseball at its core is a series of hitter-pitcher duals and that a starting pitcher may be involved in more of those duals than any individual position player. However, that position player directly impacts hundreds of additional plays on defense, and may influence even more with their baserunning. Now, I don’t personally subscribe to the philosophy that any of that matters; “impact” is a lot harder to quantify than simply looking at the frequency with which a player is involved in determining the outcome of a play. However, if you’re trying to explain why that viewpoint is incorrect, turning to frequency yourself (batters faced) is probably not the best way to do it.
A “Can A Pitcher Be The Most Valuable Player” article could be an interesting one…
I don’t know if I’d say I’m trying to explain why a viewpoint is incorrect as much as I’m bringing up a point that isn’t frequently discussed when people make the argument that pitchers aren’t capable of making as much of an impact. I personally subscribe to the idea that the higher concentration of PAs against in one game does make less of an impact than a batter appearing in 160 games — but it made sense to at least acknowledge a potential counter to that idea.
And you hit the nail on the head about the Hank Aaron Award. The typical argument goes like this: pitchers can’t win MVP because they have Cy Young. Well, why don’t we have a Cy Young equivalent for batters then? We do, it’s Hank Aaron Award. Hank Aaron Award isn’t publicized as much so it’s not the equivalent. The key is either pumping up Hank Aaron Award, or turning MVP into what Hank Aaron Award does.
The Hank Aaron award is different, as it ignores position and fielding. In the AL, Bautista is probably a lock for the Hank Aaron award, but it is much closer for the MVP.
The problem Ken, is that the MVP often just goes to the best hitter. Defense, position, and baserunning may get mentioned, but they don’t seem to actually affect the voting that much. Hell, Adrian Gonzalez was getting talked up as a potential MVP even though he was probably the 3rd best overall player on his team. On the flip side, a guy like Pedroia (or Zobrist) will not garner their due MVP consideration because so much of their production is tied up in things outside of hitting.
Whether we like it or not, the MVP has largely turned into a de facto Best Hitter award.
Bandwagon??? Geez, everyone was on the Bautista is the greatest hitter since
Babe Ruth a few months back. This is actually pretty funny.
Seriously. With how ridiculous Bautista’s numbers are, it’s amazing how quickly people stopped talking about him.
[1] His team is irrelevant.
[2] He plays in Canada.
[3] He’s not a major personality.
[4] His performance has tailed off (i.e., not record breaking).
[5] Bautista being awesome is no longer big news or a conspiracy story. Good for him.
Now, that football is starting, the number of “baseball stories” that most people can handle is greatly reduced to playoff teams (and even then, mostly the best playoff teams). Sad, but seemingly true.
There have been more Bautista stories thsan Diamondback stories.
I was referring more to MVP talk than other talk.
I think the same reasons apply in regards to MVP.
Bautista in MVP discussions is boring because [1] it ends the discussion (or should), and/or [2] he and his team aren’t in the news for anything else.
Right now, in MLB, almost all of the division races are “settled” (and it’s not even the final month). No onme is having a record breaking or historic season. Even the “close” division races aren’t all that close (acknowledging that both NYY and BOS are making the playoffs).
The CYA’s are pretty much decided with Halladay and Verlander.
So, the only thing really left to talk about are MVP discussions. If you concede that bautista wins the AL MVP, when bigtime teams like NYY and BOS are having players with great seasons and team success, then the only thing left to talk about is the NL MVP … and no one really seems to care about that. Kemp, Tulo, Upton, Votto, Braun, Fielder, etc. Wow! Is Votto having the quietest 6+ WAR season in recent memory or what?
I heard this discussed the other day, with the AL CY, NL CY, AL MVP, and playoff teams set … this could be the most boring MLB September in quite some time. Combine that with everyone being happy football is actuall ybieng played, and this stinks.
As a Tigers fan, I hope that this is a boring September in the MLB, because “boring” equals Tigers in the playoffs.
That’s because a few months back, Bautista was hitting like he was the best hitter since Babe Ruth. He was having a legitimately historic first half. And, at least on this site, almost every discussion about Bautista was prefaced with “If he keeps up this pace…”. He hasn’t kept up that pace, therefore people are now talking about other players who are having very good years.
Just because everyone notices when a player is really, really good doesn’t mean they’re on a “bandwagon”. It might just mean that that player is actually really, really good, and a bunch of people are talking about it.
Maybe this is why the MVP selections are always so controversial?
(Maybe not always, but often) Sometimes stats do not transend the value of a player, sometimes they do.
“He isn’t even likely to match Zack Greinke’s 2009 performance — or, for that matter, his own 2009 numbers.”
I was surprised to read this. I didn’t think he was this good in 2009. After looking at it, I’m not sure where this idea is coming from. He’s averaging significantly more innings per start (7.4 to 6.9), walking significantly fewer batters, and getting more groundballs. His xFIP and SIERA are lower this year, and his ERA (for what it’s worth) is MUCH lower. After last night’s start his FIP is just slightly higher, and he’s striking out fewer batters. Still, I think he will likely not only match, but surpass, his 2009 numbers.
Produced over 8 WAR in 2009, and his current pace would have him around 7 this season. Keep in mind league-wide offense is down, so similar numbers to 2009 right now has less value than it did two years ago.
2011 AL: .258/.322/.405
2009 AL: .267/.336/.428
So yes, his RAW numbers might look better, but contextually they are not.
Excellent point, thank you!
Sure, league wide offense is down, but you’re still taking one stat (that Fangraphs so happens to use to calculate WAR exclusively) as the be-all end-all way to value his season.
Verlander’s FIP is .05 below 2009, and he’s on pace to throw 10-12 more innings (assuming 5 more starts), which may make up for the league adjustment.
Beyond all that, Verlander’s ERA/FIP/xFIP/tERA/SIERA for the two seasons were as follows:
2009: 3.45/2.80/3.20/3.16/3.06
2011: 2.38/2.85/3.03/2.91/2.78
Look at the aggregate of those numbers, and Verlander looks better even in the deflated run environment.
If we expand our view from outside of fWAR, Verlander is almost 2 brWAR ahead of the 2nd AL pitcher. That’s about the smae distance between Bautista and 2nd AL batter. Is Bautista having a “year to remember”?
When you throw in memorable events like a no-hitter and multiple close encounters with a no hitter, it very well could be one of “those years”.
When did we start talking about error bars surrounding WAR? Is this something we pull out whenever we need it?
I’m glad we’re talking about error bars, I just don’t agree with the selective use of it. But, with fWAR (FIP-based WAR) Verlander is close to CC and Weav, with brWAR (runs-allowed based WAR), Velrander is blowing them away … which is impressive given the year Weaver is having.
In terms of K-Rate, BB-Rate, BABIP, HRA, and the other things that we are dazzled with (including velocity, pitch movement, etc) … Verlander is having an outstanding year. No, he’s not Koufax or Pedro … but if that’s the standard than no one else is.
He’s currently in year 3 of a 3-year20.8 fWAR, 17.1 brWAR) run. That’s 6.3 WAR/Ssn. Verlander and Halladay, that’s pretty select company.
My personal preference is that pitchers not win the MVP, but if we’re going to view it as the WARVP, then Verlander is in the running, especially if we use brWAR or a combination fWAR and brWAR.
But, let’s not be ridiculous … Verlander is the best pitcher in the AL in 2011.
“given the error bars surrounding the metric” every article using WAR should include some variation of this phrase.
There’s obviously significant error bars. All the evidence you need is the fact that the two websites that produce WAR have significant discrepancies. (I am aware they are calculated differently)
I was afraid this was going to be like the Holiday article. “da he’s got a higher WAR I think, that’s it he gets it”
Nice work, keep em coming
Why is it people always bring up batters faced to plate appearances? If defense is in WAR, why not include plays on defense in that stupid first comparison?
Great point, add in fielding opportunities for both and I would guess a position player would have significantly more. Not to say all fielding opportunities are created equal, but neither are PAs and batters faced.
“Verlander isn’t having a Clemens-circa-1986 season”
He isn’t? ERA+ is virtually identical (169 vs. 167, Rocket 1st), and Verlander leads Clemens in H/9, K/9, and W/9 (and thus WHIP). If your standard for a pitcher being an MVP candidate starts and ends with Peak Pedro, well then I guess virtually no starting pitchers will ever be deserving.
“Yet the separation in wins above replacement — between he, CC Sabathia and Jered Weaver — is minute given the error bars surrounding the metric.”
Should read “between him…” – “him” being an object of the preposition “between.”
Kill you are self.
Hay, their is no place four that! Your knot nice!
Well, if we’re getting technical, it should read “among him…”
“Between” is used with two items, and “among” is used with more than two.
😛
Actually, if you’re going to call yourself the “Grammar Police” you might want to write yourself a ticket. While you are correct about the he/him issue, you missed the fact that with three players being compared it should read “AMONG him, CC and Weaver…”
“Between” is used for two things. “Among” is used for three or greater.
Sorry–my mistake. I saw you caught that in the later post. My apologies 🙂 I shall make a citizen’s grammar arrest on myself.
Opinion on the series/Oxford comma usage (or lack thereof)?
I think factoids means things that are not true but commonly believed.
Haha at the not having a Clemens 1986 like season.
I am a Tiger’s fan and I do not think Verlander is the MVP. There is some faulty logic at work thinking that if you just remove Verlander from the Tigers you notice that they are about a .500 team with a negative run differential. But, as Saturday’s start demonstrated, not all of the wins the Tigers have (and none of the runs they have scored) when he starts can be directly attributed to him. If Verlander were not there, then someone else would be winning at least some of the starts he has won. Yes he makes Detroit better, but no more so than any ace pitcher strengthens their respective teams. Should he win the Cy Young? Sure. Should he win the MVP? No way.
Main reason he is in an MVP discussion is oh-so stupid – because he plays on a semi-crappy team that will make the playoffs (by winning a lowly AL Central) but, as the argument goes, wouldn’t make them without him playing (although they would anyway). So he is supposedly the difference between Tigers playing in October/going home. He’ll also finish the season with 20+ wins (achievement praised by every #### baseball writer. )
I think there’s no chance he’d be even mentioned as an MVP candidate if he was playing either on a surefire playoff team or a <.500 team.
They’d make the playoffs anyway without his 7 WAR? Last I checked, they were only up by 6 games. Add the Jim Leyland factor and they’d be sure to lose.
Well, they WOULD have someone else pitching instead of him, wouldn’t they?
the tigers rotation is not at all playoff-worthy without him: scherzer and fister don’t stack up to anyone’s 2 and 3 except maybe new york’s.
You might want to go check on how Fister is pitching again. It’s not like Beckett and Lester have significantly outperformed him. Then they are followed up by what….John Lackey, Tim Wakefield, and Andrew Miller (is Bucholz going to be healthy at all?). Certainly you don’t think any of those 3 are better than Scherzer.
That’s an interesting comment.
Are we examining “true talent” or “2011 performance”?
BOS SP — fWAR/brWAR/Avr
——————————
Beckett — 3.6/5.6/4.6
Lester — 2.8/4.3/3.6
Lackey — 1.0/-1.0/0.0
Wakefield — 0.7/-1.3/-0.3
DET SP — fWAR/brWAR/Avr
——————————
Verlander — 6.2/7.4/6.8
Fister — 3.8/3.5/3.6
Scherzer — 2.3/2.3/2.3
Porcello — 2.0/0.1/1.1
I wouldn’t have guessed that result.
I think this just shows how GREAT the offenses of BOS and NYY are. They both have pitching concerns.
Could this be one of those years where DET makes it to the WS and we all act surprised because DET isn’t any good, when in actuality they might be a lot better than we think (maybe because we don;t pay much attention to them)?
wow. happy to eat my words on that one, detroit looks a bit better now. they still can’t hit with the big boys, though. /crosses fingers
Speaking of that semi-crappy team, let’s examine the Tigers record vs the other top teams in the American League this year (Red Sox, Yankees, Rays, Rangers, Angels):
vs Red Sox: 1-5 yeesh
vs Yanks: 4-3 hmmm
vs Rays: 6-1 interesting
vs Rangers: 6-3 ic ic
vs Angels: 3-4 ok
Total: 20-16
Other teams records vs the same group of times (obviously subbing Detroit for themself):
NYY: 22-23
Bos: 29-15
Tex: 20-24
LAA: 19-26
So those teams had to play a few more games against better competition (obviously because of the schedule imbalance) but let’s not sit here and pretend the Tigers haven’t performed against better competition while the others have.
What makes the idiotic “You can’t be the MVP if your team does not make the playoffs” argument even more frustrating is the arbitrary nature of the three division format in MLB.
If we had a format where there were no divisions and where the top four or five teams in the league qualified for the playoffs, then Detroit would be battling Tampa Bay and the Angels for the fourth and/or fifth spots right now. Which would mean that Detroit would not be a first place team, which would mean that far fewer people would be promoting Justin Verlander as the league MVP, despite the fact that he would be having the exact same season in such a format as he is presently having.
Even more frustrating is the feeling that Detroit really isn’t much or any better than Toronto this season and that Toronto probably has a better W-L record if it’s playing more of its games against AL Central teams and that Detroit probably has a worse W-L record if it’s playing more of ITS games against AL East teams.
Back to the idiotic “How valuable can he really be if his team can’t even make the playoffs?” argument. My god, it’s a dumb argument. All a player can do is to play the game as well as he can, to hit the ball as well as he can, to field the ball as well as he can, to pitch the ball as well as he can. A player has no control over how good his teammates are or how well-managed his organization is. We should never punish people for things they have no control over. By the same token, we should never reward people for things they have no control over, and none of these Red Sox stars (or Justin Verlander) have any control over the fact that their teammates are good, their organizations are well-managed, etc.
It’s kind of like a person born in this country being proud to be an American. You were born here, and that’s the reason why you are an American. This is not an accomplishment. This is not something that you as an individual have any control over. Therefore, no reason to be either proud or ashamed of the fact that you are an American.
Just give the damn MVP award to Jose Bautista already. He’s the best player in the league; consequently, he is the MVP. Same thing. This is not rocket science.
1. Bautista
2. Granderson
3. Gonzalez
4. Verlander
fWAR (Fangraphs)
——————
[1] Bautista — 7.8
[2] Ellsbury — 7.4
[3] Pedroia — 7.2
[4] Grandy — 6.8
[5] Zobrist — 6.2
[6] Verlander — 6.2
[7] Sabathia — 6.1
[8] AGonz — 5.8
[9] A.Gordon — 5.7
[10] Kinsler — 5.6
According to fWAR, Bautista’s WAR-lead isn;t all that much. If you consider the “error bars”, he could be in 3rd place or ahead by a full WAR. *Shrugs*
brWAR (Baseball Reference)
[1] Bautista — 7.9
[2] Verlander — 7.4
[3] Pedroia — 6.6
[4] Ellsbury — 6.4
[5] Weaver — 6.3
[6] AGonz — 6.0
[7] Beckett — 5.6
[8] Grandy — 5.4
[9] Romero — 5.4
[10] Gordon/CC — 5.1
———————-
We should probably stop acting like Jose bautista is having a Barry Bonds year as if their is no legitimate competition for the MVP crown. If we subscribe to fWAR, then both Ellsbury and Pedroia are right there with him, and could even (perhaps both) surpass him by the end of the year.
If you accept brWAR for batters, you’re saying Bautista’s year is significantly better than the next best position player.
Whether you look at fWAR or brWAR for pitchers, Verlander is the CY favorite. Slimmer (to none) gap in fWAR.
With brWAR, Verlander is 2nd, behind Bautista for MVP … if we are going to treat batter and pitcher WAR the same under the “Wins are Wins” umbrella.
If you “average” brWAR and fWAR (via Tango), then bautista opens a sizeable lead in the MVP race, being 1 WAR better than everyone else in the AL.
IMO, if you regress single season UZR (via MGL), then there goes Pedroia and Ellsbury from the MVP race. Bautista stays about the same, and Grandy jumps up 0.5 WAR into 2nd place.
Looking at it some more …
Grandy has more HRs and RBIs. Bautista has higher BA, and higher OBP.
Basically, it comes down to Grandy having 24 more RBI, 28 more Runs, and bautista haveing 35 more walks.
We keep thinking that sabermetrics is making an impact with the Votto MVP, Grienke & Felix CYA, etc.
What are the odds, the award goes to the guy with more walks rather than the guy with more homers, ribbies, and a playoff appearance? I think we’re probably going to find out where sabermetrics really stands in terms of season awards.
Most people who think Verlander should win MVP seem to be under the impression that he’s the only good player on his team, which really isn’t the case.
Anyway, I think this will be the last year I care about the MVP, when Bautista finishes behind multiple players just because of his team’s success.
Anyone who thinks that Verlander is the only good player on the Tigers obviously doesn’t pay attention to baseball and missed the existence of Alex Avila (starting all-star catcher, leading WAR for catchers by a healthy margin), Miguel Cabrera (3rd in WAR amongst 1b and 2nd in wRC+), Jhonny Peralta (3rd in SS WAR, 3rd in wRC+) and Victor Martinez.
Avila is good but he isn’t THIS good. He’s due for some pretty significant regression next year.
Yes, but the argument is based on the current team and Verlander’s impact on it. Avila’s future performance has no bearing on current.
MauerPower, Avila is 24 years old, and putting in his first season as a starter. How do you know he isn’t really this good? And I bet, based on your name, you think Mauer isn’t really this bad, with as little reason . . .
I’ll say it. Alex Avila isn’t this good.
I base that on his BABIP of .369. His ISO is very good, but perhaps sustainable.
Now, please keep in mind that by saying his BABIP of .369 isn’t sustainable (likely), I’m viewing him as a 3-4 WAR catcher instead of a 6 WAR (current pace) catcher. So, instead of saying “Damn, he’s awesome, maybe the best catcher in the league @ 24”, I’m saying “He’s a very good catcher and he’s only 24.”
An above league average bat is incredibly valuable as a catcher.
Looking at Avila’s pitch type values … he’s killing fastballs and changeups, but has a negative value with anything with a bend in it. Going into a 2nd full season, that might be an area of concern (especially when looking at a 23% K-Rate). A potential “Sophomore Slump” with him could just be him getting a steady of pitches with big movement that he doesn’t handle well.
If you’re gonna give Verlander the AL MVP you better give Halladay the NL MVP. Bautista deserves AL MVP anyway so it doesn’t matter.
that’s the same problem as voting for one of the 3 red sox, though, since the phillies would make the playoffs without halladay
Well, in basketball the MVP now means the guy who’s most important to his team. If you take Verlander off of the Tigers, they’re not even close to a playoff team. Take both Granderson or Ellsbury off their respective teams… I’m guessing both still make the playoffs unless the Yankees find a way to get destroyed by Tampa Bay and Boston in their final 12 meetings against them.
There hasn’t been one OBVIOUS MVP this season in the American League. Granderson strikes out a ton, doesn’t hit even close to .300, and his homeruns are a product of his ballpark. His career highs in homeruns and RBI were 30 and 74 before this season. I don’t think Ellsbury or Gonzalez have separated themselves so much either. Ellsbury has shown more than Gonzo but doesn’t sport the .345 average. Bautista doesn’t even deserve mention anymore since he plays for a team that never had a chance at the playoffs, and his numbers have fallen off dramatically. In the NL, Braun is the only guy hitting for power and average while stealing tons of bases on a team headed to the postseason. And unlike the American League, there are multiple guys who could end up winning the Cy Young Award. Halladay, Kershaw, Lee, Hamels, with Kennedy rounding out the top 5.
You questioned whether Verlander has been much better than Weaver or Sabathia… well, obviously, YEAH. He’s leading all of major league baseball in WHIP, strikeouts, innings pitched, wins obviously, and throw him in the National League his ERA would drop and he’d already be only second over there to Cueto. So how can you say he hasn’t been better than he was in 2009? Just throw in the fact that he’s thrown a no-hitter and come close a couple of other times, and when he faced Weaver he almost threw a no-hitter but Weaver imploded. Sabathia gets almost 6 runs per game of run support, and has faced the Red Sox 4 times(been PUNKED 3 times by Beckett and once by Lackey of all pitchers.) The Yankees still face the Sox 6 more times while they also face Tampa Bay 6 more times(including the last 3 games of the season)who are 6.5 games behind the Yankees.
Bautista has awesome stats, but I’d be more likely to consider him the MVP if his team weren’t in fourth place in their division.
granderson h/r splits
wOBA: .408/.420
HR: 20/18
HR/FB%: 23.3%/22.2%
so… no, granderson’s hitting is NOT a product of his park
“Yet the separation in wins above replacement — between he, CC Sabathia and Jered Weaver — is minute given the error bars surrounding the metric.”
I almost stopped reading when I saw CC’s name included with Jered Weaver and Verlander.
Look at CC’s record against Boston and Texas.
I would not vote for Verlander for MVP. He is in a weak division and guys who pitch every 5 games should not be MVP’s. Slam Dunk for Cy Young IMO, but aside from his W totals, his numbers are not much better than King Felix last year, and nobody was calling for him to be MVP.
MVP should be Grandersons IMO, R+RBI-HR totals are awesome, and he is not as bad as UZR makes him out to be (regress, regress, regress). While his high R total is partly due to his high HR totals, his speed generates a lot of runs as well (as many as it costs Adrian Gonzalez due to his slow speed).
You can talk about luck, opportunity (eg RBI), etc., but MVP is not about who is the best player, so those points are moot, it’s about who generated or saved the most ACTUAL runs for his teams (UZR does not measure actual runs saved, it is a theoretical estimate)).
Remember, Granderson had Jeter batting ahead of him (very poor 1st half), and A-Rod, Teixeira and Cano have all had sub-par years, which makes is R and RBI totals all the more impressive (compare to Pedroia who also bats in the same spot but with Ellsbury, A-Gon and Papi having great years). Everytime Granderson scored a run or knocked one in, the scoreboard changed.
Bautista deserves consideration of course, but too bad his team is struggling to stay above 500 which will hurt his chances.
I’d be really hesitant to vote for Verlander for MVP as well, but I was stating it’s hard to count him out. Let’s say he wins his last 5 games(or 6 if he actually pitches 6 more), lowers his ERA to 2.10 or something, his WHIP to .85, allows 5.7 hits per 9 innings with another no-hitter and strikes out 279 guys. While Granderson’s average drops to around .265, Ellsbury stops hitting for power and goes into a slump… you’d have to say he’s the MVP then? All hypothetical, but people who count out pitchers who are by far the most dominant in the league drive me crazy.
Right now I’d say Granderson is MVP or maybe Ellsbury… Gonzalez hasn’t impressed me as much with his lack of power but I expected him to win the Triple Crown(something Verlander could still do in pitching terms.)
The difference in Verlander is his absurd WHIP, insane amount of innings pitched, the way it feels like every game he pitches he might throw a no-hitter, and of course his team is going to make the playoffs and his wins. I know they’re overrated as a statistic(look at Sabathia or Lackey obviously), but games in which he struggles are still better than every other pitcher not named Halladay, Lee, Kershaw, Beckett and Weaver. And people need to stop acting like CC is even in the running anymore. Nova has won 8 out of his last 9 games and only one was a horrible outing. In CC’s last 5 starts, he’s 2-2 as his ERA has ballooned from 2.55 to 2.99. He’s given up 10 hits in 3 of those games, and 9 in another. He couldn’t beat Tampa Bay, Boston, Oakland, and barely beat the White Sox in a 3-2 game, and only beat the Twins due to the Yankees putting up 8 runs on the board for him.
So I only think certain pitchers deserve to win both the MVP and Cy Young, and they have to be by far the most dominant, game changing pitcher in their league. Look at the rest of his staff aside from newly acquired Fister who looks like he can actually pitch. 2 of their main pitchers, one former phenom and one former all-star have ERAs over 5, and Scherzer through his first 9 starts with an ERA of 2.81 and 6-0 record now is 13-7 with a 4.52 ERA, 1.38 WHIP, and has seen his k’s per 9 plummet. The Yankees had Nova, Colon, Garcia all pick up the slack and pitch pretty well while Robertson and Rivera have been money finishing games(after Mo had a few days of people asking if he was done.)
wOBA:
Jose Bautista- .455
David Ortiz-.418
Miguel Cabrera-.415
Curtis Granderson-.414
Adrian Gonzalez-.410
Paul Konerko-.400
Adjusted OPS +:
Jose Bautista-191
Miguel Cabrera-170
David Ortiz-163
Adrian Gonzalez-159
Paul Konerko-155
Curtis Granderson-154
It may not be a “Bonds year,” but that’s some pretty serious separation in offense. Dude’s the MVP.
Good point.
IMO, the AL MVP decision is going to tell us whether the BBWA values walks or RBIs and/or being on a playoff team. Bautista has many more walks, Grandy has a lot more RBIs.
Last year, had StL won the NLC instead of Cin, Pujols may have had the MVP over Votto.
If bautista does not win the MVP, then at least we know where sabermetrics stands in the big picture. We can either celebrate Bautista’s MVP and feel validated or we can look at someone else winning it and know that sabermetrics still has a lot of work to do in order to be influential in award selection.
From a sabermetric standpoint, there is rarely such a clear-cut league MVP player.
No. I would go Bautista/Granderson/Agonz/Ellsbury before I went Verlander if we are talking MVP.
I’m on the anti-Verlander MVP train but I’m on the Roy Halladay MVP train.
Justin Masterson’s FIP is 2.95, Justin Verlander’s is 2.88. I’m comfortable projecting that Masterson will receive zero MVP votes this year. So I have a hard time buying that Verlander should win this.
Verlander is now clearly the best pitcher in the league (2 weeks later).
You should not write baseball articles as your knowledge seems very limited. His numbers are very similar to ’86 Clemens. Your whole premise seems to be, yeah he leads in all stats but is he the better pitcher. I guess Posada is a better hitter than Cabrera to.