The 2014 NL MVP race

I am not the kind of person to take pleasure in another person’s discomfort, but I have to confess I was extremely relieved when Colorado shortstop Troy Tulowitzki went down with a season ending injury. It’s not that I hate the Rockies; who could hate a team that usually finishes in last place, except their own fans? No, I was relieved that the world would be spared yet another debate over a player on a losing team being seriously considered for league MVP.

It’s happened before. In the late 1950’s Ernie Banks won two MVP awards playing for a Cubs team that finished in the second division, back when the bottom half of the teams in the league were called the “second division.”  Andre Dawson led the league in RBIs and picked up the award playing for a different (but not THAT different) Cubs team.  Alex Rodriguez won the MVP for a last place Rangers team in 2003 (it was later revealed that he had tested positive for steroids, not that the use of performance enhancing drugs enhanced his, you know, performance).

Tulowitzki led the National League in about every offensive category when he went down with an injury. Most mid-season polls had him leading in the MVP race despite the fact that the Rockies were pathetic. Currently they are on a pace to win 40% of their games, easily the worst in the league by a wide margin. But still many baseball writers would have voted Tulo the MVP award.

Look people, the award isn't “Best Hitter” or “Best Player” but “Most Valuable.” The situation can be summed up by a story about Ralph Kiner, who led the league in home runs playing for a last place Pirates team. He was asked to take a pay cut because this happened before Marvin Miller explained how the world worked to baseball players. Kiner said he would sit out rather than take the pay cut; his owner said, “Ralph, we finished in last place with you; we’ll finish in last place without you.”

Back in the old days when one team from each league made the playoffs (then consisting of the World Series and nothing else), it was possible to make a case for a player leading his team to NEARLY winning a pennant to win the MVP award. But now that one-third of the teams in each league make the post-season, it is nearly impossible to consider the efforts of a ball player on a team that does no make the post-season to be “valuable.”

Other leagues understand this. Kevin Love is considered a great player in the NBA, but last season he finished 11^th in MVP voting.  No quarterback with a losing franchise has ever been named NFL MVP. But for some reason baseball considers the Most Valuable Player award less a team achievement and more for racking up individual stats.

But we’re not out of the woods yet.  Now the most talked about potential MVP winner is Giancarlo Stanton of the Miami Marlins, who are right now 3 games below .500 and 11 games out of the NL East lead.  But Stanton leads the NL in home runs and runs batted in by a wide margin, even if his team isn't winning many games because of it.

The MVP needs to be from a winning team who will make the playoffs. But the reality is that better teams are not constructed around one player like they used to be. No position player on a winning NL team really stands out, which leads to another MVP debate: pitchers versus batters.

Clayton Kershaw is dominating the National League like no one since another Dodger pitcher named Koufax. He is leading the league in wins and ERA, and is three strikeouts behind Johnny Cueto despite starring six fewer games. He would be a lock for the MVP if many voters didn’t have a bias against pitchers winning the MVP award.

One line of reasoning is that pitchers have their own award, the Cy Young, so only batters should be considered for the MVP. That’s a nice theory except for the fact that the rules say nothing about pitchers being ineligible for the MVP award. If someone wanted to create a “Hitter of the Year” award that would be terrific. But nothing says pitchers can’t win the MVP.

A second theory goes that a pitcher who works every fifth game couldn't be as “valuable” as a player who plays EVERY DAY. This is, of course, absurd. Position players may play every day, but they only bat 4 or 5 times a game, while pitchers face three or more batters every inning for 6 or 7 innings (or more). The fact is that Clayton Kershaw has faced slightly more batters than Stanton has had plate appearances (Stanton has 607 PAs, Kershaw has faced over 620 batters). It is generally true that a good starting pitcher will pitch to as many batters as an everyday player will have plate appearances.

So let’s have a vote for the MVP of the National League that focuses on successful teams, and let’s not be biased against defense over offense.  They (whoever “they” are) always say pitching wins championships. So doesn't that mean that pitchers are more valuable than batters?