[LWC]

The pitcher might get 30 starts in a 162 game season. The argument is often used that they are directly responsible for the 20-25 wins that they have. Remember, a catcher is catching and calling those pitches (manager too, sure), and the defense is making outs when a ball gets hit. Also, outside of a handful of pitchers, they are scoring ZERO of their runs. So they are not responsible for putting runs on the board.

Let's say Kobe Bryant is directly responsible for 15 NBA wins for the Lakers (fairly close to same ratio of 25 wins out of 100). If he does not even play in the other 45 games, how can he be the MVP? The 50 PPG might look good, but if it is only 15 games then it kinda pails.

SK and I agree that in the post-season where a pitchers plays in more games, I am cool with it.

If we went back to the old days where a CY Young would pitch every 2 or 3 days, I could see more of an argument for it. Today, the pitcher doesn't even finish the whole game, most of the time. They pitch 6 or 7 innings, a set-up man comes in, followed by a closer.

What if your "MVP" pitcher is a pitch-to-contact pitcher? Doesn't the defense get half the credit?

I could see a VERY strong case for a player like Justin Verlander. If he had a record like 30-5 with an ERA under 2 and 8 or 9 K's per game, and the team gave him very little run support and they won their division with 80-something wins. If he is directly responsible for carrying a bad team to the playoffs, I would potentially vote for him. His supporting cast has to be terrible though.

I mean right now with the incredible year that Verlander has had, how do you give him the MVP over a guy like Adrian Gonzalez? An everyday player that has over 100 RBI, 20 or 30 HR's, and is hitting almost 350 AND is a gold-glove contender?

Another case that I MIGHT consider a pitcher for MVP would be if it was a terrible year for offense. If the leading everyday candidate has a .305 20HR 100RBI season, I might consider a 25-30 win pitcher with a sub 2 era and 8 or 9 K's per game.