The members of the Baseball Writers Association of America almost universally suck! Virtually none of them deserve the honour of being able to vote for Major League Baseball's major awards. They have shown year after year to have no ability to exercise sensible judgement skills. This year's crime will be in naming Detroit Tigers starting pitcher Justin Verlander the AL MVP.
Don't get me wrong, Verlander had a great season! He won the pitching version of the Triple Crown and was a unanimous selection for the AL Cy Young Award, as he should have been. But he has no business even being considered for the MVP. Pedro Martinez had a better year in 2000 and he didn't win, so even for those that think that pitchers should win, the bar has been set and Verlander failed to clear it.
In a vacuum, you can argue that any and all players should be eligible for the MVP. After all, the "P" stands for "player" not "position" or "position player". This is a really weak argument and holding this opinion shows a remarkable inability to think logically or critically.
There are two primary awards for baseball players. One is the Most Valuable Player Award and the other is the Cy Young Award. The Cy Young Award goes to the most outstanding pitcher. The MVP goes to the most outstanding player. Player is not defined, nor should it have to be. If pitchers were meant to be considered for the award then there wouldn't be a separate award exclusively for pitchers. It wouldn't make sense to have one.
(There is a third award, the Hank Aaron Award, given to the best offensive player in each league, but it has nowhere near the value or cachet of these two venerable awards. If an argument is to be made that pitchers belong in the MVP race, then the Hank Aaron Award needs to be elevated to a status equal to the other two.)
Here's an analogy. Quebec decides to separate from Canada and produces its own currency. They decide on the follow coins to be minted as legal tender: a penny, a dime, a quarter, another different-sized quarter (similar to a nickel), a 3rd quarter the same size and weight as the dime (but a different colour), and a dollar coin. What is wrong with this hypothetical design? For one, there are redundant coins. If you have one 25c piece, you don't need another. It is a waste, it is pointless, it is illogical and it is confusing. Second, there are 2 identically sized, shaped and weighted coins. This is enormously confusing. People are going to accidentally spend 'quarters' when they meant to spent 'dimes' and vice versa. You can probably count on people telling you when you've accidentally underpaid (or intentionally tried to pull a fast one) but if you accidentally overpay, kiss your money goodbye. Even worse, try to pick the right coin if you're blind! Third, there is no 5c coin. Arguably you don't need one -- a country could get away with nothing but pennies but it would be inconvenient for people to deal with such a silly coin system. However, even though you don't need one, it makes total sense to have one.
How does this relate to baseball? As in coins, it makes no sense to have multiple coins representing the same value, or in this case, multiple awards for the same subgroup. Similarly, it makes no sense to have no 5c coin, here represented by an award exclusively for everyday position players. Finally, 2 different coins that are virtually indistinguishable from one another representing different values is what the BBWAA is trying to turn the MVP and Cy Young into.
The only way that it makes sense for there to be two separate awards is for them to represent two different types of contribution and thus two different types of players. You could argue that pitchers are more important than everyday position players and should thus be eligible for both. Nice try. You're showing evidence of independent thought, but you're not quite there yet. If pitchers were more important than position players then you would only need one award, the MVP, and pitchers would win it more often than position players because they are 'more important to their teams'. But that isn't the case. There are two awards, and again I say the only way they make sense is if they are completely separate!
There are two types of baseball writers that vote for pitchers. The first thinks that pitchers are typically more valuable than position players. This is similar to the popular and misguided belief that quarterbacks are integral to football and goalies are integral to soccer and hockey. Try to win with a superstar in these 'prime' positions when you have gross deficiencies in other positions. All positions are equally essential to winning. That is a big part of why these are called 'team' sports and not individual sports with the 'main' athlete having secondary 'helpers' -- consider golfers and caddies. Even in rowing, the coxswain -- who doesn't actually row and doesn't even need to have any athletic ability (! -- just an excellent sense of timing/pacing) -- still wins a medal when his 'team' wins a race! In fact, rowing teams without a good cox seldom excel, so you could call this non-athlete the 'prime' player of that sport!
Any single weakness can undermine a team completely! No position is more vital than others. In baseball there is an axiom that "good pitching always beats good hitting." This is always true except for the times when good hitting beats good pitching. Amazingly, both happen with about equal frequency. Still, we've got perception issues and the BBWAA doesn't recognize a difference between perception and fact. What they perceive to be true must be true even if the facts refute it. Even baseball management and owners have similar perception problems. I believe that the average salary for pitchers is higher than that of position players, but not by much. It is also true that more money is wasted on bad pitching than there is on bad hitting as pitchers can 'lose it' at any time. So, even in salaries there is no real evidence that pitching is more important than hitting.
Besides, an equally compelling argument can be made that the 'key' player on the diamond isn't the pitcher but the catcher! Catchers are generally acknowledged as the most valuable/important position player to any team. This can be shown by the simple fact that catchers typically are the worst hitters and runners on any team. (Some shortstops may be weaker hitters, but not all. Further, the shortstop is generally considered an elite fielding position just like the catcher is.) If catchers' contributions without the bat weren't of paramount importance then weak hitting catchers would never make the majors!
The idea that pitchers deserve the MVP is even more ludicrous in the American League than in the National League. At least in the National League pitchers are responsible for taking their turn at bat! Sure some of them are absolutely terrible hitters but some actually help their own cause when hitting! In the American League pitchers are spared that indignity by the Designated Hitter Rule. The only times they ever have to pick up a bat is during a handful of at bats during Interleague play and during the World Series, assuming that they actually play one of these games in a National League park. Not all do!
The second type of baseball writer that casts MVP votes for pitchers are the lazy kind. If the best position players vying for the award are hard to separate from one another, i.e. hard to rank, take the easy way out, i.e. cop out, and vote for the most outstanding pitcher. If two stallions finish a race in a dead heat, we name co-winners of the race. These baseball writers would declare the #3 horse as the winner because it's a mare and it's easier than having to decide between the two faster stallions and in sports, particualrly North American sports, no one is ever comfortable with ties or co-winners! It somehow offends the sports-fans' and sports-writers' delicate sensibilities.
Here's yet another, completely different reason why pitchers should never be considered for the MVP and why they have their own, private award. Pitching and hitting are so different that they simply cannot be compared. There is no uniform, mathematical or logical method to use to decide whether a performance in one role was better than another performance in the other role. That leaves the only methods as personal feelings, biased opinion and hunches. Nothing should ever be decided on fuzzy feelings, biased opinions and hunches!
The'official' rules for how to determine who should win these awards are vague at best. Here are the BBWAA guidelines for the MVP:
(1) actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense;
(2) number of games played;
(3) general character, disposition, loyalty and effort;
(4) former winners are eligible;
(5) members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.
Nowhere does it say that a team must make the playoffs, or even contend for a playoff spot. In fact, there is nothing that indicates that a player should be judged by the performance of his teammates, at all! But the vast majority of the BBWAA won't give a player on a mediocre team the time of day. Part of item number 1 is pretty much ignored. A player's defensive play almost never comes into play, with the obvious exception of pitchers. Item number 2 speaks very loudly that pitchers should NOT be eligible as they don't come close to appearing in enough games. Similarly, last year's AL winner, Josh Hamilton missed a ton of games due to injury! So, summarily, the BBWAA ignores its own rules and votes for pitchers with alarming regularity. Item number 3 is completely ignored. Barry Bonds won 7 MVPs. Has there ever been a bigger jerk in baseball? Need I say more about that?
I do? OK, how about 2003.
Alex Rodriguez has an outstanding season for the last place, 71-91 Texas Rangers. Carlos Delgado also has an outstanding season for the 86-76 Toronto Blue Jays. Between the two of them they led the AL in virtually all offensive categories (Delgado led MLB in RBI). Rodriguez had a marginally better season in a ballpark designed for hitters (e.g. the Rangers won the AL HR derby with 239 on the season). They finish 1-2 in the MVP race in spite of the fact that neither team was close to a playoff spot.
Rodriguez almost certainly should have won the MVP in 2002, but the BBWAA in its infinite wisdom gave the award to Miguel Tejada. Why? Because Tejada played for the 1st place Oakland Athletics and Rodriguez played for the last place Texas Rangers. A-Rod had better stats than Tejada in every category (except team wins, which is not something within his, or any one person's control)! A-Rod led the majors in 2002 with 57 HR, 142 RBIs & 389 total bases, the 1st time someone led in all 3 categories in almost 20 years. His 57 HR were the most since Roger Maris' hit (a then record, and probably still should be) 61 in 1961. Again I ask, where does the talent of your teammates fit into the qualifications for the MVP? I'm absolutely positive that some of the ballots cast had been influenced by "writer's guilt" for having snubbed A-Rod the year before. Stated another way, A-Rod was likely given votes based on career performance (or a 'lifetime achievement award'). I seem to have missed the part in the instructions where previous years' performances were in any way relevant. Certainly, A-Rod's 2002 was far better than his 2003. Similarly, Delgado's 2003 was better than Tejada's 2002. And yet we're stuck with the results given to us by a clueless and possibly corrupt BBWAA.
Getting back to qualification #3...Rodriguez has always been a private to surly individual and has been dogged by all kinds of bad press. A-Rod received the nickname "The Cooler" for the tendency for teams to cool off when he arrived and heat up when he left, which seemed to occur with all three of his teams -- the Mariners, Rangers and Yankees. His own teammates called him "A-Fraud" for a perceived lack of clutch performance. He has also been frequently associated with marital infidelity including keeping the company of strippers and prostitutes. This ended his marriage. And last but not least, A-Rod is a confessed user of PEDs and wouldn't you know it, the period he 'allegedly' took them (allegedly because he probably took them outside of the limited period to which he he confessed) just happens to be 2001-2003, the years in question.
On the other hand, Carlos Delgado has always been a model citizen. He was as positive a person as anyone is likely to meet and was also always considered a club leader. His smile was famous throughout baseball and he was great with fans and the media. Even more telling, Delgado won MLB's Roberto Clemente Award (in 2006) for his community contributions, something with which he had been very active throughout his career. (He even had charitable interests in Toronto long after he had moved on as a free agent to the Mets.) Finally, at no point has there been any credible connection made between Delgado and the use of PEDs. I'm not even aware of any non-credible connections attempted!
The only knock against Delgado was his silent, almost completely unknown protest of the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In his mind, the playing of "God Bless America" in New York City had become a symbol of support for these 'immoral and unauthorized' wars. Delgado would disappear into the clubhouse during the playing of GBA rather than stand at attention in the dugout with the other players. The only reason I don't think that this cost Delgado any votes at all is that it didn't happen until 2004, or at least didn't come to light until then. Had it been known in 2003, he would not have finished as high as 2nd in the MVP since undoubtedly members of the BBWAA would have punished Delgado for his incredible and admirable show of conscience, deeming it "Unamerican". There would have been ballots where his name was conspicuously completely absent.
(A-Rod's charitable claim to fame is a $4 million donation to his Alma Mater, the University of Miami, for which he was rewarded with their renaming their baseball stadium after him and placing him on their Board of Trustees. Is it really charity if you get rewarded for it?)
The only other obvious differences between the two players are that A-Rod is an American Hispanic having been born in New York City. Carlos Delgado is an Afro-Hispanic Puerto Rican, i.e. not American and black. I don't know whether this had anything to do with any of the votes cast that year, but it would be entirely consistent with prevailing American attitudes.
Not everyone agrees with me. Not everyone understands logic, either. BleacherReport.com published this article on the web 2 months ago: MLB Writers Who Won't Vote a Pitcher for MVP Shouldn't Be Voting at All. I've read the article. In my humble opinion, it's complete garbage. It tries to use one injustice to justify another. It also gets hung up on the semantics of the word "valuable". If the title confuses you, just look at the guidelines for the award as you're supposed to! Complete crap.
I guess the wild frontier justice style of handing out these awards can be considered part of their appeal -- or their major flaw, depending on your personal view. It certainly leads to lots of debate and controversy, as well as some huge snubs and unfairness. In addition to the MVP guidelines mentined above, here are some of the definitions for the awards from around the World Wide Web.
Baseball-Almanac.com on the MVP:
"It is considered by Major League Baseball as the only "official" most valuable player award and symbolizes the pinnacle of a player's personal achievement during any single season of play."
Wikipedia.com on the MVP:
"The Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award (MVP) is an annual Major League Baseball (MLB) award, given to one outstanding player in the American League and one in the National League."
Elsewhere on Wikipedia it refers to it as follows:
"Kenesaw Mountain Landis Most Valuable Player Award: given to the best all-around player"
Notice the phrases 'personal achievement' and 'outstanding'. These directly contradict the BBWAA practices of electing pitchers and ignoring 'outstanding personal achievement' because they weren't surrounded by outstanding teammates.
I will give members of the BBWAA some credit. Two years ago they gave the American League Cy Young Award to "King" Felix Hernandez, who is, in fact, a superlative pitcher. What made this decision remarkable is the fact that Hernandez finished with a 13-12 record for the Seattle Mariners. How the members of the BBWAA managed such an enlightened position to elect a pitcher with only a marginal record but can't get the MVP right is beyond me. After all, the BBWAA are clearly hung up on the importance of wins for MVP candidates, yet somehow they can see past that for the award for the player category where wins and loses are tracked! This makes absolutely NO SENSE!
So, to summarize, too many members of the BBWAA are hypocrites and/or idiots. They should all turn in their voting rights for people that actually know what they are talking about. (Jeff Blair, a local BBWAA member turned in his voting rights recently, no longer wanting the responsibility or aggravation. Presumably this had to do with the Hall of Fame vote and the use of PEDs. Regardless of the reason for the decision, I have enormous respect for Blair for having given up that honour. For whatever reason he no longer felt up to it and gave it up. Dozens of others should follow suit.) They are using this honour to make pseudo-political statements contrary to the instructions they have been given. The moment they deviate from the formula they should lose their vote, whether they want to give it up or not. The honour and responsibility of having the vote is not a license to become a petty tyrant doing things the way they see fit, the rules be damned. Don't get me wrong, there is still room for individual opinion, but not for ideology. Ignoring players on mediocre or losing teams is ideology. Ignoring qualification #2 and voting for pitchers is ideology. Ignoring qualification #3 and the defense portion of qualification #1 is ideology.
Maybe with these bad seeds removed, future honours awarded will actually make sense. I expect nothing to change before I die. The only hope is that the Commissioner of Baseball will step in a clarify things -- which is to say none. This won't happen with Selig and I expect Selig to be replaced by his own younger clone -- the owners got away with a puppet Commissioner for 20 years and they will keep on electing puppet Commissioners until the US Congress steps in and stops them. This simply won't happen because it would be political suicide to 'interfere' in the affairs of all-sacred Baseball. So, let me be clear: there is no hope for change. This is just another thing wrong with baseball with no relief in sight. If you don't like it, you don't have to. But get used to it, it's here to stay.
[Editor's note: Verlander didn't just win, he won by a landslide! Complete garbage! This is the 2nd year in a row that Jose Bautista has won the Hank Aaron Award and been robbed of the MVP. Bautista is a superlative defender! How could he win the Hank Aaron, and be a better defender than his competitors but not win the MVP?]
A self-derisive title. We're off to a good start. Image source: @johnlund.com (who is not affiliated with this blog)
No comments:
Post a Comment