Post Your Top 3 AL/NL MVP/CYA - End of August

[navamind]

Harper's 194 OPS+ would be the 2nd best of Frank Thomas's career. That's how good of a season Bryce is having offensively. And when you include Harper's very good CF defense, you have a fantastic ballplayer. No matter what WAR calculation you go by, Harper's at the top of the league.

 

[ericd7633]

Harper's 194 OPS+ would be the 2nd best of Frank Thomas's career. That's how good of a season Bryce is having offensively. And when you include Harper's very good CF defense, you have a fantastic ballplayer. No matter what WAR calculation you go by, Harper's at the top of the league.

Griffey Jr. A-Rod and Pujols never had a season with an OPS+ that high either, which is saying something.

 

[navamind]

RE24 is a much better stat than RBI/runs scored (stats that are pretty meaningless without context, especially RBI). And Harper leads the league in that... by a pretty decent margin.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Im not a propenent of giving the MVP to a starting pitcher. They have their own award and Greinke is clearly ahead in that race. The only pitcher I could EVER see winning a MVP is a closer and that is if they do something crazy like save 50-60+ games.

You would only give MVP to a pitcher if it was a closer? What? Even the most used relief pitchers are going to throw 1/3 of the innings of a starter. They are not close to as valuable, even if they save 70 games.

 

[navamind]

Im not a propenent of giving the MVP to a starting pitcher. They have their own award and Greinke is clearly ahead in that race. The only pitcher I could EVER see winning a MVP is a closer and that is if they do something crazy like save 50-60+ games.

 

[rmilia1]

You would only give MVP to a pitcher if it was a closer? What? Even the most used relief pitchers are going to throw 1/3 of the innings of a starter. They are not close to as valuable, even if they save 70 games.

Disagree. A closer can effect far more games in a year than a starter does. Innings are important but not the end all. I wouldn't give a MVP to any pitcher but certainly never a guy that plays max 35 games a year

 

[navamind]

Disagree. A closer can effect far more games in a year than a starter does. Innings are important but not the end all. I wouldn't give a MVP to any pitcher but certainly never a guy that plays max 35 games a year

 

[StanMarsh51]

Disagree. A closer can effect far more games in a year than a starter does. Innings are important but not the end all. I wouldn't give a MVP to any pitcher but certainly never a guy that plays max 35 games a year

You're underestimating the value of innings....on days that a starting pitcher starts, you can make the case he's the most important person on the field for his team that day.

That's not often the case with closers....

 

[soxfan1468927]

Disagree. A closer can effect far more games in a year than a starter does. Innings are important but not the end all. I wouldn't give a MVP to any pitcher but certainly never a guy that plays max 35 games a year

The impact that the closer has on each of his games is far less than the impact a starter has on the 33 or so starts he has in each game. Of course innings aren't the "end all" but when the difference in innings is the extreme as the difference between a top line starter and a relief pitcher, the value is not debatable. Closers will play in 70 games, and that's the high end.

Last year Fernando Rodney had 48 saves, pretty darn close to your "50-60" threshold. Was he more valuable than Corey Kluber?

 

[navamind]

You hold it against starting pitchers for pitching up to 35 games a year (and generally face 20+ batters per game), but relievers that come in 60-75 times to face 3-5 batters? That's just completely asinine. Also, the 9th inning isn't even close to being the "toughest inning."

The Three Toughest Outs

 

[soxfan1468927]

You are vastly overrating the impact that a single relief pitcher has on the games in which he plays. Also ignoring the fact that starters face the same hitters multiple times a game, something that relievers are unable to do (hence why they are relievers and not starters). The fact is, it's much more rare to find a pitcher who can go through a lineup multiple times and be successful, and therefore it's much more valuable. It's the reason guys like Wade Davis can be mediocre to bad starters, and stud relievers.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

also, think about it this way... no starting pitcher will get MVP without pitching 200+ innings... Lets say a team plays 1600 innings(which is more than they play)... that means any good pitcher plays at least 1/8 of a teams season... Now lets look at a hitter, he is only up an average of less than 5 times per game... That is way less than a pitcher is...

 

[navamind]

also, think about it this way... no starting pitcher will get MVP without pitching 200+ innings... Lets say a team plays 1600 innings(which is more than they play)... that means any good pitcher plays at least 1/8 of a teams season... Now lets look at a hitter, he is only up an average of less than 5 times per game... That is way less than a pitcher is...

But then there's the matter of them playing positions for 8-9 innings, and baserunning...

Not that I think starting pitchers should be excluded from MVP discussions, because they're just as viable candidates as position players IMO.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

But then there's the matter of them playing positions for 8-9 innings, and baserunning...

Not that I think starting pitchers should be excluded from MVP discussions, because they're just as viable candidates as position players IMO.

yes, but how often is a player part of the play.... Even if you added up all the outs created defensively by a player and the opportunities they have missed with the number of plate appearances they had offensively it will be nowhere near the batters faced by a pitcher

 

[soxfan1468927]

also, think about it this way... no starting pitcher will get MVP without pitching 200+ innings... Lets say a team plays 1600 innings(which is more than they play)... that means any good pitcher plays at least 1/8 of a teams season... Now lets look at a hitter, he is only up an average of less than 5 times per game... That is way less than a pitcher is...

Or you could look at batters faced compared to plate appearances. David Price led the league in batters faced last year with 1009, Ian Kinsler led the league in plate appearances with 726. Obviously that gap is narrowed due to defensive innings and baserunning, but there is still a gap.

 

[ericd7633]

Disagree. A closer can effect far more games in a year than a starter does. Innings are important but not the end all. I wouldn't give a MVP to any pitcher but certainly never a guy that plays max 35 games a year

Saves are the most meaningless stat in all of baseball. Francisco Rodriguez had 62 saves in 2008, which is the major league record. Yet he wasn't even the best closer that season. Mariano Rivera crushed him in every meaningful category and it wasn't close. It's a joke that K-Rod finished higher in the CYA that year, but the writers fell in love with that meaningless stat.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Im not a propenent of giving the MVP to a starting pitcher. They have their own award and Greinke is clearly ahead in that race. The only pitcher I could EVER see winning a MVP is a closer and that is if they do something crazy like save 50-60+ games.

And... there goes credibility out the window

 

[navamind]

Saves are the most meaningless stat in all of baseball. Francisco Rodriguez had 62 saves in 2008, which is the major league record. Yet he wasn't even the best closer that season. Mariano Rivera crushed him in every meaningful category and it wasn't close. It's a joke that K-Rod finished higher in the CYA that year, but the writers fell in love with that meaningless stat.

There were two great examples of how dumb the save stat last night. Chapman got a save... in a 13-6 Reds win. Also, Jean Machi got the "save" even though he gave up a hit, walked three, allowed one run, and threw a wild pitch.

 

[DragonfromTO]

See I just dont see that. I look at the numbers and yes Harper is having the better year but Most Valuable still means something. Its tough for me to consider anyone the Most Valuable when their team is such a failure. I know thats old school thinking but it doesnt mean its wrong

Is a ring less valuable if it's on a bag lady's finger instead of a millionaire's?

 

[rmilia1]

And... there goes credibility out the window

Eh its my opinion, a dominant closer is far tougher co come by than a 1 starter, Pretty much every team in the league has an ace, sure some are at a higher level but a truly dominant closer is far more rare.