Justin Verlander is going to win the AL Cy Young Award. There's absolutely no doubt about it. He had the award locked up by the All-Star break. Verlander won the pitching Triple Crown and led the AL in every major pitching statistic (except, obviously, for saves). He went 24-5 with 250 strikeouts and a 2.40 ERA as the Tigers won their first division title since 1987. Oh yeah, Verlander also led the AL in innings pitched (251), held opponents to a .192 batting average and had a WHIP of 0.92.
There are no other candidates. That's by no means a knock on the rest of the pitchers in the American League. Jered Weaver had a very solid year. CC Sabathia won 19 games. James Shields had 16 wins, including four shutouts, for a Rays team that surprisingly won the wild card. But Verlander was far and away the best pitcher in the American League all season. He wasn't just good, he was dominant. Everyone knows that.
So, instead of making the case as to why Verlander deserves to win the Cy Young, I'm going to argue why he belongs in the discussion for AL MVP, an award that hasn't gone to a pitcher (in either league) since Oakland's Dennis Eckersley in 1992. There's undoubtedly going to be a number of people who feel that since pitchers have their own award, the MVP should go to a position player. While I disagree with them, they're entitled to have that position. However, sometimes a pitcher's season is so exceptional that you can't help BUT put him in the MVP discussion. That's certainly the case this season with Justin Verlander.
I thought Pedro Martinez was worthy of winning AL MVP honors in 1999, when he went 23-4 with a 2.07 ERA and a ridiculous 313 strikeouts for the Red Sox. However, despite collecting the most first-place votes, he finished second in the MVP vote to Ivan Rodriguez. The reason? Two of the voters left Martinez completely off their ballot, arguing that pitchers don't deserve consideration for MVP. That's completely ridiculous. According to the rules that are in place, pitchers are eligible for MVP. Yet two guys decided that Martinez shouldn't be since he wasn't an everyday player.
Hopefully, the same thing doesn't happen to Verlander this year. It's clear to anybody who watched baseball this season that he was the most dominant figure in the game. I'm usually pretty hesitant to make the case for a pitcher for MVP, but this year is an exception. MVP stands for Most Valuable Player. Justin Verlander's value to the Detroit Tigers was pretty obvious. The Tigers knew they were going to win every fifth day. Yes, he only played in 35 games compared to the 140 or so that Curtis Granderson, Jacoby Ellsbury, etc., played. But the Tigers won the AL Central because of those 35 games. Without Verlander, they don't win the division.
Sadly, this principle is also used in Cy Young voting. The last closer to win the Cy Young was Eric Gagne in the NL in 2003. The last AL closer to win the Cy Young was Eckersley in that 1992 MVP year. Mariano Rivera has never won a Cy Young Award. I'm not saying that there's a closer in either league that should be in this year's Cy Young discussion, but I do think there are cases where a standout season by a closer can't be overlooked. It really is the same argument: if the rules say a closer can win the Cy Young Award, the voters really shouldn't be able to take it upon themselves to decide whether or not they're worthy of the award.
In my opinion, Justin Verlander wasn't just the best pitcher in the American League this season. He was the best player. I don't care that he didn't play every day. Anyway, more on that next week when they actually award the MVP. As for Cy Young, there's no question.
My vote: Justin Verlander-That's pretty obvious. But since the actual voters are required to put five guys on the ballot, I'll follow those same rules and make selections 2-5. 2-Jered Weaver, 3-James Shields, 4-CC Sabathia, 5-Jon Lester.
No comments:
Post a Comment